FANCIFUL OPENING OF KING’S AIRPORT

King Mswati III of Swaziland said that one day planes will land at the newly-opened Sikhuphe Airport at a rate of one per second.

He was making a speech at the opening ceremony for the airport, dubbed by critics as a ‘vanity project’ for King Mswati, who rules Swaziland as sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch.

To date, no airlines have signed up to use the airport which has been built in the wilderness of eastern Swaziland, about 80km from the kingdom’s capital Mbabane. It is not clear when the first commercial flight will use Sikhuphe.

Sikhuphe which has cost an estimated E3 billion (US$300 million) so far to build was opened four years behind schedule. Originally the cost of construction was expected to be E500 million.

In the past few weeks allegations of corruption in the awarding of contracts have surfaced.

In January 2014 the Times Sunday, an independent newspaper in Swaziland, reported officers from the Anti-Corruption Commission and Auditor General offices were separately investigating  how money allocated for construction of the airport was spent since 2003 when the project was launched.

King Mswati said Sikhuphe was a ‘First World facility’. This was in reference to his stated aim to make Swaziland a ‘First World’ nation by 2022. At present 70 percent of King Mswati’s 1.3 million subjects live in abject poverty, earning less than US$2 a day. Swaziland also has the highest rate of HIV infection in the world. In 2003, the International Monetary Fund said Sikhuphe should not be built because it would divert funds away from much needed projects to fight poverty in Swaziland.

King Mswati said the airport was not an extravagance but important development infrastructure.

However, there are doubts that the airport is fit-for-purpose. In June 2013 an engineer’s report was published by to the Mail and Guardian newspaper in South Africa saying the structure of the airport was defected and large jet airlines would not be able to land,

There are also doubts about the size of the passenger terminal. One estimate suggested it might take a passenger landing at Sikhuphe two hours to get through the terminal. This was based on official figures from the Swaziland Civil Aviation Authority (SWACAA ) that said the terminal would be able handle and process about 300 passengers per hour: which is roughly half the number of passengers on a fully-laden Boeing 777 plane.

See also

PROOF: KING’S AIRPORT POINTLESS

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2011/02/proof-kings-airport-pointless.html

 

KING’S AIRPORT ‘WILL BE UNUSABLE’

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2013/06/kings-airport-will-be-unusable.html

DOUBTS OVER PROSPECTS FOR AIRPORT

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2012/06/doubts-over-prospects-for-airport.html

SWAZI PM HUMAN RIGHTS SMOKESCREEN

Swaziland’s Prime Minister Barnabas Dlamini is trying to divert attention away from the kingdom’s appalling human rights record by claiming opponents are telling lies.

Dlamini was reacting to news that the United States will no longer allow Swaziland to have trade benefits under the African Growth Opportunity Act (AGOA) unless it makes substantial improvements in its treatment of workers and political opponents.

Swaziland has been given until 15 May 2014 to make the changes.

Dlamini told the Swazi House of Assembly this week that the United States had been lied to by Swazis who wrote letters with false information about the kingdom.

‘These Swazis report false matters stating that there was no freedom of assembly among other freedoms,’ the Times of Swaziland reported him saying. 

But, what he did not say was that the issue of human rights violations in Swaziland is not new. US Ambassador to Swaziland Makila James told local media recently that Swaziland had been given eight years to comply with the requirements but nothing significant had happened.

The United States wants Swaziland, which is ruled by King Mswati III, who is sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch, to implement the full passage of amendments to the Industrial Relations Act; full passage of amendments to the Suppression of Terrorism Act (STA); full passage of amendments to the Public Order Act; full passage of amendments to sections 40 and 97 of the Industrial Relations Act relating to civil and criminal liability to union leaders during protest actions; and establishing a code of conduct for the police during public protests.

James said that there needed to be greater accountability of the police force in Swaziland. ‘There is a need to give police better guidance so they can do proper law enforcement.’

Local media in Swaziland estimated at least 20,000 jobs could be lost in the textile industry if the benefits of AGOA are lost. AGOA allows Swaziland to export goods into the United States without having to pay tariffs.

This is not the first time that Prime Minister Dlamini has falsely claimed there are no problems with human rights in Swaziland. When he was reappointed PM by King Mswati in 2013 he claimed, ‘Government will ensure that the justice system is administered swiftly and efficiently and maintenance of law and order will be secured in accordance with the highest human rights standards.’

Dlamini was personally reappointed Prime Minister by King Mswati. He has never been elected to public office by the people.

In his previous three terms as PM, Dlamini rode roughshod over the rights of the Swazi people sending police and security forces to break up any prodemocracy activities in the kingdom.

International organisations have over the past year highlighted numerous human rights abuses.

In July 2013, AfriMAP, a group that monitors and promotes good governance, reported, ‘The current form of governance in Swaziland is a complete anathema to the conventional wisdom that prevails in almost all AU [African Union] member states, and certainly in SADC [South African Development Community]; the issue of dictatorships, absolutism and total state control of the citizenry is a forgotten and unacceptable notion; which is why Swaziland government must realize that it cannot delay political reforms, since it will only undermine its credibility, delay progress, economic and social development of the very people it is supposed to uplift and protect.’

A report on human rights in Swaziland, published in 2013 by the US State Department revealed, ‘The three main human rights abuses [in 2012] were police use of excessive force, including use of torture, beatings, and unlawful killings; restrictions on freedoms of association, assembly, and speech; and discrimination and abuse of women and children.

‘Other human rights problems included arbitrary arrests and lengthy pretrial detention; arbitrary interference with privacy and home; prohibitions on political activity and harassment of political activists; trafficking in persons; societal discrimination against members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community and persons with albinism; harassment of labor leaders; child labor; mob violence; and restrictions on worker rights.

‘In general perpetrators acted with impunity, and the government took few or no steps to prosecute or punish officials who committed abuses.’

In May 2013, in its annual report on Swaziland, Amnesty International reported, rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly continued to be violated in the kingdom. There were also ‘arbitrary arrests and excessive force used to crush political protests,’ the report stated, and ‘torture and other ill-treatment remained a persistent concern’ in Swaziland.

Amnesty noted that in May 2012 the African Commission on Human Rights adopted a resolution ‘expressing alarm’ at the Swazi Government’s failure to implement previous decisions and recommendations of the Commission relating to the rights of freedom of expression, association, and assembly.

These violations included the use by police of, ‘rubber bullets, tear gas and batons to break up demonstrations and gatherings viewed as illegal’.

In April 2013, the Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa (OSISA) reported that recently Swaziland police and state security forces had shown ‘increasingly violent and abusive behaviour’ that was leading to the ‘militarization’ of the kingdom.

OSISA told the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (ACHPR) meeting in The Gambia, ‘There are also reliable reports of a general militarization of the country through the deployment of the Swazi army, police and correctional services to clamp down on any peaceful protest action by labour or civil society organisations ahead of the country’s undemocratic elections.’

In April 2013, the Swaziland United Democratic Front (SUDF) and the Swaziland Democracy Campaign (SDC), two organiastions campaigning for democracy in the kingdom, in a joint statement said police in Swaziland were now a ‘private militia’ with the sole purpose of serving the Royal regime. This was after about 80 armed officers broke up a public meeting to discuss the lack of democracy in the kingdom.

See also

KINGDOM FACES HUMAN RIGHTS PROBE

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2014/02/kingdom-faces-new-human-rights-probe.html

 

US PRESSURE FOR SWAZI REFORMS

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2014/02/us-pressure-for-swazi-reforms.html

ANOTHER POLICE ATTACK ON CHILDREN

Swaziland Police have once again assaulted children who complained about conditions at their school.

This time they were armed with batons when they attacked pupils and detained about 100 of them in classrooms in Mbabane.

It happened after the students boycotted classes after they were denied the opportunity to take part in sporting activities by their school.

Local media reported about 100 Mbabane Central High School pupils were detained by police for hours for allegedly leading their colleagues into wildcat class boycott.

‘Some of the pupils were beaten by the police officers who did not even want to hear what the pupils were complaining about’, the Swazi Observer reported. The students ‘ran around the school whilst police chased after them dragging them back to class’.

The Times of Swaziland reported, ‘Police chased the pupils and assaulted them as they ordered them to go to class. The action forced the pupils to run helter-skelter, with most of them jumping through windows as they evaded the advancing police officers.’

The school said they suspended sporting activities because too many students were failing exams and needed to focus more on their studies.

Police in Swaziland often overreact when dealing with school students. In June 2013 police fired live bullets children boycotted classes in protest against alleged corruption at Mhubhe High School in Ngculwini. Gun shots were fired at the pupils after police drove them away from the school, but they tried to return.

In 2011, Police reportedly assaulted pupils of Mbukwane High School after the children took part in a demonstration. The Observer reported police went to the homes of the pupils, took them to the police station where they were interrogated ‘before being beaten up’.

One parent told the newspaper, ‘The police were moving from home to home in search of those children they thought were ringleaders. My son was among those who were taken to the police station. I had to take my child to hospital after the beating.’

In the same year, 12 schoolchildren at Kubongeni High School, accused of being leaders in a class boycott, were beaten up by police officers with batons, in their own school, in front of the school’s principal. The pupils were called individually into the school’s staffroom where the police officers and their principal were. Pupils said they were then assaulted with batons and fists.

Local media reported the school became suspicious that the pupils were about to organise another boycott, so the police were called.

See also

POLICE SHOOT AS CHILDREN PROTEST

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2013/06/police-shoot-as-children-protest.html

 

SWAZI POLICE ASSAULT SCHOOL KIDS

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2011/03/swazi-police-assault-schoolkids.html

 

PUPIL LEADERS BEATEN BY POLICE

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2011/03/pupil-leaders-beaten-by-police.html

 

SWAZI COPS FIRE LIVE BULLETS AT KIDS

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2008/10/swazi-cops-fire-live-bullets-at-kids.html

PRESSURE ON ‘OBSERVER’ OVER ‘RAPE’

The Swazi Observer has not said if it will pay the eight alleged rape victims it identified financial compensation.

Meanwhile, an international media ethics watchdog, iMediaEthics, has joined the growing outcry against the newspaper that later apologised to the women but shrugged the incident off as a ‘boo-boo’.

iMediaEthics has written to the Observer demanding an explanation or its huge lapse in media ethics. It also wants the newspaper to respond to a call from Swazi Media Commentary for the editor to resign.

The intervention comes after the Observer published the names of the victims as part of its coverage of the start of a trial of an alleged serial rapist. The newspaper named the women and gave details of how each of them was allegedly attacked.

After an outcry by readers the Observer published an apology to the women but said it had made a ‘boo-boo’ and a ‘snafu’ by naming the women.

It did not say whether it would pay the women compensation for publishing their names. The newspaper has not announced that it will discipline the editor or other staff member for the error. Unlike in Swaziland, in many countries it is a serious offence to name alleged rape victims. For example, in England an editor would be taken before a judge on a contempt of court charge.

The women named by the newspaper are all too poor to be able to afford to take the Observer to court. However, if they had been able to, the compensation that the paper, in effect owned by King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch, might be required to pay out could be enough to bankrupt it.

iMediaEthics, under the headline Seriously? 8 Rape Victims IDed, Error called a 'Boo-Boo', said it had written to the Swazi Observer to ask if any of the victims complained or threatened legal action. 

See also

‘SWAZI OBSERVER’ NAMES ‘RAPE VICTIMS’

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2014/02/swazi-observer-names-rape-victims.html

 

‘OBSERVER’ SHRUGS OFF ITS RAPE OUTRAGE

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2014/02/observer-shrugs-off-its-rape-outrage.html

DEMOCRAT ACQUITTED OF TERRORISM

Youth league President acquitted of terrorist charges in absolute monarchy

Kenworthy News Media 25 February 25, 2014

SOURCE

Bheki Dlamini, President of the Swaziland Youth Congress (SWAYOCO), the youth wing of Swaziland’s largest illegal political party PUDEMO, and former education and mobilizing officer of the Foundation for Socio Economic Justice, has been acquitted of charges of terrorism and released from prison today after a protracted trial that saw him spending over three years in prison, writes Kenworthy News Media.

Speaking to a crowd that had gathered at Sidwashini Prison, waiting for his release, Bheki said “me walking out of prison does not mean freedom. This was a small jail and I’m walking out to a bigger jail until we attain freedom. Comrades let’s go work.”

Whilst happy that Bheki had been released, one of his lawyers, Mary Da Silva, called it a “tragedy that Bheki has been robbed of so many years while he remained imprisoned for a crime he did not commit.” Bheki’s co-accused, Zonke Dlamini, was found guilty and will be sentenced on Friday (28 February 2014).

The state had charged Bheki (and Zonke) under the Swaziland Terrorism Act – an act that defines terrorism in very broad terms – for planting petrol bombs in police officers and MP’s houses between April and June 2010. SWAYOCO and the rest of the democratic movement were convinced of his innocence and had claimed all along that he was being framed.

Bheki was refused bail in 2010 because the state claimed that the trial would be swift, but the trial ended up taking well over three years, not least because of several dubious postponements. He went on a hunger strike in July 2013 to protest the many delays to his case.

Many other political prisoners like Bheki remain either imprisoned awaiting trial, where many of them are tortured, or on seemingly indefinite bail in Swaziland.

Bheki Dlamini for one maintains that he was tortured by the police in order to make him confess. “For over an hour, or even more, I would be suffocated by use of a rubber tube, plastic bag and surgical gloves. I was suffocated to the extent that I soiled myself and I was in no position to deny anything I was told to admit,” he said in 2010. Amnesty International also specifically mentioned Bheki Dlamini’s torture by the police in its 2011 annual report.

But Swaziland’s youth are adamant that they will continue to struggle until they have achieved democracy and socio-economic justice.  “Peace, justice and human dignity is what we seek. As we do so, we are prepared to face the consequences of speaking that we deserve to be in charge of our destiny,” SWAYOCO member Mcolisi Ngcamphalala said, commenting on the acquittal of his President.

SWAZI VOTERS SNUB ‘KING’S DEMOCRACY’

Fewer than 270,000 people voted at the Swaziland national election in 2013: only 44 percent of those entitled to do so.

The percentage turnout was lower than in the previous election in 2008.

The low turnout casts doubts on claims by King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch, that his subjects support what he calls his kingdom’s ‘unique democracy’.

Political parties are not allowed to take part in elections and most of the political groupings in Swaziland that advocate for democracy have been banned under the King’s Suppression of Terrorism Act.

The Swazi people are only allowed to select 55 of the 65 members of the House of Assembly, the other 10 are appointed by the King. None of the 30 members of the Swaziland Senate are elected by the people: the King appoints 20 members and the other 10 are appointed by the House of Assembly.

Neither the House of Assembly nor the Senate are independent of King, who can, and does, overrule decisions he does not like.

The people do not elect the government; the Prime Minister and Cabinet ministers are handpicked by the King.

Immediately before the national election in September 2013, King Mswati announced that the political system in Swaziland that had until then been called tinkhundla would in future be known as ‘Monarchical Democracy.’ He said this would be a partnership between himself and the people. 

The supporters of King Mswati saw the election as a way for the Swazi people to endorse the King’s version of democracy. At the same time prodemocracy groups urged people to boycott the election.

The full results of the election have not been made public by King Mswati. This is not unusual in Swaziland where ordinary people are starved of information about the Royal Family and how the government is run.

Information about the turnout in September’s election slipped out in a report from the African Development Bank. In its Southern Africa Quarterly Review and Analysis for the fourth quarter of 2013, the Bank devotes a mere seven lines to the election but manages to reveal, ‘Swaziland held its parliamentary elections in September 2013 and the voter turnout was 65 percent.’

If that was the case it means that about 267,000 of the 411,000 people who registered to vote actually did so. It also means that only 44.5 percent of the 600,000 people Swaziland’s Elections and Boundaries Commission (EBC) said were entitled to vote did so.

This compares to the 47.4 percent of people entitled to vote in the previous election in 2008 who actually did so. At that election 189,559 people of the 400,000 entitled to vote did so.

The vote for the 2013 election contradicts King Mswati, who in a speech at the opening of parliament in February said, ‘We wish to thank the nation for going out in their numbers to elect a new government in a highly successful election.’

It also exposes the Weekend Observer newspaper, which is in effect owned by the King and is considered to be a propaganda operation for the monarchy. Immediately after the vote in September it reported the turnout of people on election day was ‘about 400,000’ which would have equated to a turnout by voters of about 97 percent.

It is impossible to tell whether the low turnout in the 2013 election was in support of the boycott call by prodemocracy advocates. It could easily have been because ordinary Swazi people saw no point in voting as it would change nothing in their lives.

The power wielded by King Mswati was criticised by two independent international groups which observed the Swazi election in 2013. Both the African Union and the Commonwealth Observer Mission suggested the kingdom’s constitution should be reviewed to allow political parties to contest elections.

The Commonwealth Observer Mission added that, ‘The presence of the monarch in the structure of everyday political life inevitably associates the institution of the monarchy with politics, a situation that runs counter to the development that the re-establishment of the Parliament and the devolution of executive authority into the hands of elected officials.’

Whatever the reason for the low turnout in the 2013 election, King Mswati and his supporters can no longer claim with justification that the Swazi people wholeheartedly support the political system in Swaziland.

KING’S AIRPORT: ‘NO FLIGHTS FOR 3 YEARS’

It may take up to three years before international airlines use Swaziland’s Sikhuphe Airport that is set to open on 7 March 2014. If they decide to use it at all.

No airlines have signed agreements to fly in and out the airport that is estimated to have cost at least E3 billion (US$300 million) to build and is at least four years behind schedule opening. Critics have dubbed the airport a ‘vanity project’ for King Mswati III.

The King, who rules Swaziland as sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch, will conduct the opening ceremony himself, but global dignitaries are not expected to attend.

It has been known for some years that airlines are not willing to use Sikhuphe once it opens. And, if there had been interest from airlines outside Swaziland, it would take them at least three years before they could be ready to use the airport.

Sabelo Dlamini, the Swaziland Civil Aviation Authority (SWACAA) Marketing and Corporate Affairs Director, revealed in June 2012 that it could take three years for an airline to actually start using the airport once it had decided to do so. ‘Normally, airline operators need about three years to prepare for such an exercise.’ He said at the time that Swaziland had approached three potential airlines, which he declined to name, and they were ready to operate at Sikhuphe.

Nothing has happened since Dlamini made his statement in 2012 and no airline outside Swaziland has announced it will use Sikhuphe.

Dlamini also revealed in 2012 that no agreement had been reached with Swaziland’s neighbours South Africa and Mozambique about which routes planes would be allowed to take in and out of Sikhuphe.  Again, no announcement has been made that this issue has been resolved.

The only airline expected to use the airport is Swazi Airlink, which presently flies out of Swaziland’s existing airport at Matsapha. Airlink is a joint venture between the Swazi Government and South African Airlines and flies one route into Johannesburg.

In February 2013 Barnabas Dlamini, Swaziland’s Prime Minister, said, ‘Swazi Airlink will have to use Sikhuphe as it will be our international airport.’

However, in 2011 Airlink had said it did not want to use Sikhuphe, preferring to stay at Matsapha.

There is no news on what will happen to Matsapha Airport after Sikhuphe opens. Matspaha is an underused airport situated minutes away by road from Manzini, Swaziland’s commercial capital. It is also close to Mbabane, the Swazi capital. Sikhuphe, meanwhile, is in the wilderness of eastern Swaziland, about 80km from Mbabane.

Critics of Sikhuphe, who have dubbed the multi-million dollar airport project ‘King Mswati’s vanity project’, have argued for years that there is no potential for the airport. Major airports already exist less than an hour’s flying time away in South Africa with connecting routes to Swaziland and there is no reason to suspect passengers would want to use the airport at Sikhuphe as an alternative.

Completion of the airport has been delayed for years. King Mswati had announced it would be open in time for the FIFA World Cup, played in neighbouring South Africa in 2010.

As long ago as 2003, the International Monetary Fund said Sikhuphe should not be built because it would divert funds away from much needed projects to fight poverty in Swaziland. About seven in ten of King Mswati’s 1.3 million subjects live in abject poverty, earning less than US$2 per day.

Meanwhile, the King lives a lavish lifestyle, including a personal fortune, once estimated by Forbes magazine to be US$200 million, 13 palaces, a private jet and fleets of top-of-the range Mercedes and BMW cars.

US PRESSURE FOR SWAZI REFORMS

The United States has made it perfectly clear to Swaziland: make democratic reforms by May or lose a preferential trade agreement.

An estimated 20,000 Swazi people could lose their jobs in the textile industry if the US acts.

But, we should not expect King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch, to care: every time in the past the international community has told him to democratise the kingdom, he has ignored them. There’s no reason to suppose this time will be different.

The United States has given Swaziland until 15 May 2014 to make significant changes to laws in the kingdom that restrict political and workers’ rights.

At stake is Swaziland’s continued ability to export textile goods to the US without having to pay tariffs under the Africa Growth Opportunity Act (AGOA).

US Ambassador to Swaziland Makila James told local media that Swaziland had been given eight years to comply with the requirements but nothing significant had happened. Now, things had to change. ‘We are not negotiating. The terms are clear,’ she told the Observer Sunday newspaper.

The Observer reported, ‘Listing the conditions, she said they include full passage of amendments to the Industrial Relations Act; full passage of amendments to the Suppression of Terrorism Act (STA); full passage of amendments to the Public Order Act; full passage of amendments to sections 40 and 97 of the Industrial Relations Act relating to civil and criminal liability to union leaders during protest actions; and establishing a code of conduct for the police during public protests.’  

She added that there needed to be greater accountability of the police force in Swaziland. ‘There is a need to give police better guidance so they can do proper law enforcement.’

The Observer estimated that if AGOA benefits were removed from Swaziland 20,000 jobs would be lost in the textile industry as firms moved out of the kingdom to other countries in the sub-Saharan Africa region that continued to have preferential tariff agreements with the US.

The US has been criticising the lack of democracy in Swaziland for several years. In a public statement in April 2013, the US Embassy in Swaziland said it had ‘deep concern’ about the way police engaged in ‘acts of intimidation and fear’ against people seeking their political rights.

The statement came after armed police, acting without a court order, barricaded a restaurant in Manzini to stop people attending a public meeting to discuss the national election in Swaziland.

The US embassy said it had deep concern about the manner in which representatives of political organisations and lawyers for human rights were treated by police.

The police blockade of the restaurant took place on 12 April 2013 and was intended to mark the 40th anniversary of the Royal Decree in 1973 by King Sobhuza II that tore up the constitution and allowed the king to introduce any law he wished and to change existing ones.

The decree has never been rescinded and his son, Mswati III today rules Swaziland as an absolute monarch.

The US embassy said it was, ‘[C]oncerned that a group of people were prevented from entering a restaurant, where they had planned to hold their meeting and were forcibly removed from the premises by police’.

The statement added that the 2005 Swaziland Constitution guaranteed freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association.

It further said Swazi security forces had a duty to protect the rights of citizens to, ‘communicate ideas and information without interference’.

This was not the first time the US embassy in Swaziland has criticised the Swaziland ruling regime. A year earlier in April 2012 it said, ‘We urge the Swazi government to take the necessary steps to ensure the promotion and protection of the fundamental rights and freedoms of all Swazi citizens as outlined in the Swazi constitution, including freedom of conscience, of expression, of peaceful assembly and association, and of movement.’

The statement went on, ‘The United States government is deeply concerned about increasing infringements on freedom of assembly, as evidenced by the recent actions taken by Swazi security forces to prevent peaceful citizens from gathering for a prayer meeting on Saturday, April 14 in Manzini as well as reports of those same forces preventing people from gathering in groups of more than two people in Manzini and Mbabane on April 11 and 12.’

There is little expectation that Swaziland will comply with the latest US requirements. In the past King Mswati has refused to make democratic reforms in return for assistance. In 2011 he refused to accept a R2.4 billion (US$ 240 million) donation from South Africa to help his bankrupt kingdom and avert a humanitarian crisis because it had demands for democratic reform attached.

‘OBSERVER’ SHRUGS OFF ITS RAPE OUTRAGE

The Swazi Observer, the newspaper that published the names of eight victims of alleged rape and gave details of their attacks, has called the outrage a ‘boo-boo’. 

On Tuesday (18 February 2014) it published across its front page and two inside pages details of a court case involving an alleged serial killer. It published the names of the women, something that contravenes journalism ethics across the world. It called its report ‘a sneak preview’ of the court case.

The newspaper gave their names and details of how each attack took place. It named one woman and revealed she was a virgin.

In all of the attacks violence including a knife was used. In all cases the alleged rapist did not use a condom.

On Friday (21 February 2014), in a tiny piece, the Observer said it had made a ‘snafu’ by publishing the names.

It made an unreserved apology, but tried to pass off the outrage against the women as an understandable error and said it was ‘caught with our guard off’.

But that is not true. This was not some minor mistake like spelling someone’s name wrong. This was evidence that at the Swazi Observer they don’t know what they’re doing.

The report would have been seen by the original reporter who wrote it, a sub editor (copy editor) whose job it is to check for mistakes, possibly a headline writer, a news editor, and the editor. Not one of these ‘journalists’ spotted the mistake.

Not to publish the names of victims of rape is one of the first things a student journalist learns in school. But not one of the Observer journalists who saw the story on its way from the reporter’s computer keyboard to the published page realised anything was wrong.

In its apology the Observer wrote, ‘We believe this expression of regret or apology appropriately matches the scale of the error.’

No it does not. What disgusting indifference the Observer has shown to the women it has terrorised.

The Observer went on. ‘Indeed, the only decent thing we could do after mixing up the rules is to draw our own sword and hang ourselves’.

But that has not happened. No one has resigned. Instead, they have asked their readers for forgiveness. But, why should they give them that? They have the right to expect at least the minimum level of competence from the newspaper.

But, they have not got that. The editor should resign and if he does not, King Mswati III who in effect owns the paper should sack him.

Then the newspaper should contact the women involved and ask how many millions of dollars they must pay them in compensation?

See also

‘SWAZI OBSERVER’ NAMES ‘RAPE VICTIMS’

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2014/02/swazi-observer-names-rape-victims.html