Swazi Select Ctte Report Contempt Times Sunday Editor

8/14/2019 Swazi Select Ctte Report Contempt Times Sunday Editor

1/26

REPORT

OF THE

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

SELECT COMMITTEE

INVESTIGATING CONTEMPT CHARGES

AGAINST

THE TIMES SUNDAY EDITOR


2/26

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Letter to the Speaker ... 3

Declaration letter .. 5

Motion (Terms of Reference) . 6

Submissions 7

Findings and Recommendations 25


3/26

3

9th October, 2007

Hon. SpeakerHouse of AssemblyHouses of Parliament

Mr. Speaker

It is indeed an honour and to table the report of the Select Committeeinvestigating allegations of Contempt of Parliament against the Editor of the TimesSunday for the article published on July 01, 2007. As the Chairman of theCommittee I would like to register my profound gratitude to the following Membersof the Committee for their support:

Hon. E. Vilane Vice ChairpersonHon. Vusi Dlamini MemberHon. Mphiwa Dlamini MemberHon. John Shiba Member

On behalf of the Committee, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all thosewho appeared before the Committee. Without their cooperation and views the workof the Committee would have been an uphill task.

The Committee interviewed Honourable Members, media practitioners andstakeholders and interested parties, inter alia:

1.The Member who sparked the whole debate (Hon Mfomfo Nkambule)2.Mover and Seconder of the Motion (Hon Madlenkhosi Dlamini and HonClement Dlamini)

3.MISA Director ( Mr. Comfort Mabuza)4. University of Swaziland Lecturers in Journalism Department (Mr. Moyoand

Mr. Adidi Uyo)5. Government Spokesperson (Mr. Percy Simelane)6. Law Professional (Mrs. Rufia Sarumi)7. Swazi TV CEO ( Mr. Vukani Maziya)8. Times of Swaziland Ombudsman ( Mr.Martin Dlamini)

Ref. No.............PAR/...........................................SWAZILAND HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT

P.O. Box 37LobambaSwaziland

KINGDOM OF SWAZILAND

Telephone: 416 2407/8/9/10/11416 1286/7/8/9Fax: 416 1603


4/26

4

9. SBIS journalist (Phesheya Dube)10. Times Sunday Editor (Mr. Mbongeni Mbingo)11. Official from the AGs Office ( Mr. Mndeni Vilakati)

Moreover, I would also like to thank the Hon. Members of the House for entrusting

us with such an enormous responsibility.

Yours Faithfully

HON Dr TITUS .THWALACOMMITTEE CHAIRPERSON


5/26

5

DECLARATION OF INTEREST

I, the undersigned

Hon. Dr Titus S. Thwala

Do hereby declare that:

1. I am a regular columnist in the Times Sunday, the very paper this reportinvestigates.

2. I have declared any involvement in this assignment to the Times Sunday Editorand no objection was made

3. I declare that in consideration to the issues arising from the Terms of Reference,

I have applied my independent and professional mind. Advice that I provide hereinis to the best of my ability, independent and unbiased by my involvement orknowledge of Journalistic spheres.

4. As at, and up to, the date of this report the entire contents of this report havebeen kept confidential and I declare that no person other than the duly appointedCommittee Members of this assignment, had access to information herewith tillreport is tabled in Parliament.

5. I then took a step further, by suspending my writing of articles for Times Sundaytill the report is presented to Parliament.

__________________________Hon. Dr. Titus Thwala


6/26

6

1.0 MOTION

To move that the Hon. House appoints a Select Committee to investigate

allegations of Contempt of Parliament against the Editor and of the Times Sundayfor an article published on July 01, 2007.

Mover: The Hon. Mandlenkhosi DlaminiSeconder: The Hon. Clement Dlamini

2.0 TERMS OF REFERENCE

1.0 Terms of Reference No1

To investigate the alleged abuse of freedom of Expression to insultHonourable Members and bring the office of the Hon. Speaker into disrepute.


To investigate whether the editor does have a basic understanding ofParliamentary Practice and Procedure


To investigate the allegations that the article promotes division andanimosityamong Members of the August House.


To investigate whether the article conforms to the ethics of journalism.

5.0 To look into any matter it deems fit

6.0 To make findings and recommendations.

7.0 To compile and table a report within four weeks


7/26

7

4.0 SUBMISSIONS

4.1SUBMISSIONS BY HON. MFOMFO NKAMBULE

The Hon. Mfomfo Nkambule told the committee that he approached the Speakersoffice to raise a matter of Privilege as per the practice.

He told the Hon Speaker that he had carried out an investigation on certain peoplein the corridors of power who were meeting at Nkhanini with a view to changing theConstitution. He stated that this was a threat to the stability of the Kingdom andthe Minister should be asked to shed some light on the developments which wereundermining the authority and sovereignty of the legislature.

The Speaker agreed and told him that the minister might not be present as he was

reported to be indisposed. He was told that if the Minister did not show up he wasto continue to raise the matter in the House so that the Speaker would bereminded to call the Minister to the House on the following day. Indeed the matterwas raised in the House, but could not proceed due to the absence of the minister.He was accordingly advised to defer the matter pending the availability of theminister.

Notwithstanding such a promise, he was very surprised when he was ruled to beOut of Order when he later raised the matter under Standing Order 58 on a daywhen the minister was present in the House.

4.2 SUBMISSIONS BY THE MOVER AND SECONDER OF THE MOTION (HONMANDLENKHOSI DLAMINI AND HON CLEMENT DLAMINI)

They thanked the Committee for allowing them to present their point of view. Alsoasserted that the Editor of the Times Sunday should be investigated for Contemptof Parliament and putting the august House into disrepute.

The Hon Members submission was based on the Committees Terms ofReference, inter alia:


8/26

8

TERMS OF REFERENCE

1.0 To investigate the alleged abuse of Freedom of Expression to insultHonourable Members and bring the office of the Hon Speaker into disrepute.

They submitted that the Editor abused Freedom of Expression to insult HonourableMembers and bring the office of the Speaker into disrepute.

2.0 To investigate whether the Editor does have a basic understanding ofParliamentary Practice and Procedure.

They argued that the Editor lacks basic understanding of Parliamentary Practiceand Procedure. He failed to understand that Hon Mfomfo Nkambule was ruled to

be out of Order for wrongly using Standing Order No 58 (Point of Priviledge)instead of raising the matter through the established procedure.

3.0 To investigate the allegation that the article promotes division andanimosity among Members of the august House.

They strongly believed that the article did promote division and animosity amongMembers of the august House.

4.0 To investigate whether the article conforms to ethics of Journalism.

They argued that the editors article did not conform to ethics since it wasinaccurate and bias.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Journalists covering Parliament should be properly trained and wellversed on procedure

A media Bill should be piloted.

.


9/26

9

4.4 WRITTEN SUBMISSION MISA DIRECTOR (MR. COMFORTMABUZA)

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

Freedom of Expression is not just freedom to communicate accurate, inoffensiveinformation and ideas, but includes the right to ridicule and shock public officials intheir undertaking of public duties. In democratic countries, it is accepted thatpoliticians must be more open to public scrutiny and tolerate more comment andcriticism than ordinary citizens. They have sought and attained public office, theyuse public money and they are supposed to be accountable to the public. In fact,the freedom to openly criticize and scrutinize public officials be it accurate orinaccurate criticism is a cornerstone of robust democracy.

The Constitution of Swaziland guarantees the right to freedom of _expression andspecifies limitations. The article in question does not breach the limits of freedom

of _expression/press freedom as provided by the Constitution. Section 24 (3)details the types of speech that may not be protected by freedom of _expression.These include speech related to: national defense, public safety, public order,public morality, public health, protection of reputation, rights and freedom of otherpersons, private lives of persons concerned in legal proceedings, preventingdisclosure of information received in confidence, maintaining authority andindependence of the courts.

At no point does the content of this article fall under the limitations on freedom of _expression listed in the Constitution. For media coverage of Parliament, it iscritical that limitations on freedom of _expression be narrowly defined. The very

basis of any democracy is informed communication between citizens and theirrepresentatives. The media is the vehicle for this information and therefore needbroad reign to truly be the eyes and ears for the public.

Defamation

Given that the article in question is criticizing the actions of public officials, it doesnot give reason to sue for defamation. Public officials should only pursue litigationin relation to matters that clearly belong in the private sphere. Suing for criticism ofones public functions is an instrument to restrict the medias reporting of politiciansand limit public scrutiny.

If public officials want to correct inaccurate or offensive media content, they shouldexercise their right to reply. Determining matters of defamation is the exclusivedomain of the courts and Parliament should respect this separate role of the

judiciary.


10/26

10

Contempt of Parliament

Contempt of Parliament strictly refers to any act wish obstructs parliamentaryfunctions. The article did not in any way cause interference or obstruction to theHouse or its members in the discharge of their duties. Times Sunday cannot be

guilty of contempt of parliament, as the article does not breach any parliamentaryprivileges that are necessary for the execution of parliamentary functions.

Journalism Ethics & Media Regulation

It is not the role of a parliamentary select committee to judge journalism ethics, orindeed the code of conducts of any profession. It is the responsibility of the media,not parliament, to set and supervise their professional and ethical standards.

The fact that Parliament is investigating ethical compliance by a journalistdemonstrates an attempt to exercise control over editorial content and the media.

This contravenes the constitutional protection of media freedom that was endorsedby Parliament itself.

Training of Journalists

The profession of journalism is based on the right to freedom of _expression. Thisright belongs to all people and cannot be made contingent on specific education ortraining. It is the preserve of media owners and editors to employ the right peopleto work in a particular role.

Journalists can best be compared to politicians who also must be versatile enoughto address a wide range of peoples concerns. Neither is obliged to obtain trainingor a license to do their job. With regard to specific training for parliamentaryreporters, as with all journalism portfolios the world over, specialization usuallyoccurs on the job.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Parliament should repeal Standing Order 195 and cease seeking to punishthe media and others for offending the dignity of Parliament by criticizing theinstitution or its members.

Offensive and inaccurate reporting should be not considered Contempt ofParliament. Contempt should be reserved for serious cases of interferencewith Parliaments ability to perform its function.

Public officials should tolerate criticism and scrutiny of their public functionsand not pursue litigation.


11/26

11

Eligibility of media access to Parliament should be determined by the mediaitself.

The professional standards and ethics of journalists should be set andjudged by the media itself.

4.5WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY MR. MOYO (SENIOR JOURNALISM LECTURERAT THE UNIVERSITY OF SWAZILAND)

He said the article which appeared in the Times Sunday is judgmental in that itquestions the credentials of the Speaker of Parliament. No Editor of any countryshould assume that he /she is equipped with knowledge to tell qualifications of anofficer selected by Member of Parliament. The whole notion of denigratingparliament is a sign of disrespect for a duly constituted institution where nationalmatters are discussed. If criticism is done in the name of Press Freedom, it must

be remembered that whereas such freedom is contained in the constitution, it isnevertheless limited. Press Freedom is one side of the coin- the other side isrespect for privacy and responsibility.

It must be remembered that some two years ago a Danish newspaper journalistdrew cartoons of Prophet Mohammed. This was done in the name of PressFreedom. These cartoons failed to recognize respect for religion. Muslims aroundthe world labeled the cartoons as an offence punishable by death. The feelingswere that those responsible should be beheaded.

The cartoon controversy spread throughout the world one time threatened to causea Third World War. Various leaders said caricatures of Prophet Mohammed werean attack on the spiritual values of Muslims. The leaders said should be a limit toPress Freedom. The then British Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw said while he wascommitted to press freedom I believe that the re-publication of these cartoons hasbeen insulting, it has been insensitive, it has been disrespectful and it has Muslims.Inciting religious or ethnic hatred in this manner is not acceptable. Somecommentators said the real issue surrounding the Danish cartoons of the ProphetMohammed is hate speech and incitement to violence rather than freedom ofexpression. The cartoons were seen as inflammatory, showing disrespect andlack of moral maturity.

The Times Sunday article fell into the above category of lacking moral maturity andlacking respect for Swazi tradition and custom. The article had uncalled-for satirethat cartooned Parliament. The language used was derisive and disdainful. Itportrayed Parliament as an institution that did not deserve respect. It certainly wasunSwazi and could not be protected by freedom of speech and or opinion.

In conclusion, the freedom of speech has limits in any society and should observetraditions and culture of the society which it operates. Parliament and its


12/26

12

committees should be given the respect it deserves. It cannot be labeled as aKangaroo Court at any stage of its operation. He stressed that this was notsuppose to be done by a journalist.

4.6SUBMISSION BY PROFESSOR ADIDI UYO SUBMISSION BY DR ADIDIUYO

He thanked the committee for inviting him to a meeting that is of critical importanceto the role of the Media in society. He indicated that he would respond againsteach Term of Reference. He also made a brief presentation on journalism ethics.

TERMS OF REFERENCE


He was non committal since he strongly believed in freedom of expression.


Had difficulty in answering the question since he did not know much about theeditors


He also declined to answer this Terms of Reference because he was not too sure.


Although evasive, he did concede that it is important for Journalists to adhere toethics.

4.7SUBMISSION BY PHESHEYA DUBE SBIS

He thanked the Committee for inviting him to a meeting that is of criticalimportance to the role of the Media in society. He also made a brief presentationon journalism ethics.

TERM OF REFERENCE



13/26

13

In a general response, he stated that freedom of expression is a fundamentalhuman right.


Could not answer the question since he did not know much about the Editorsbackground.

3.0 To investigate the allegation that the article promotes division andanimosity among Members of the August House.

He was not too sure of the answer.


Without being judgemental on the article in question, he stressed the importance ofethics.

4.8 SUBMISSION BY GOVERNMENT SPOKESPERSON (PERCY SIMELANE)

He thanked the committee for inviting him and he apologized that as a GovernmentSpokesperson he should have said something about the matter but he was awaywith the Prime Minister in Ghana.

1.0 To investigate the alleged abuse of Freedom of Expression to insultHonourable Members and bring the office of the Hon Speaker into disrepute

He said there is no absolute freedom of Expression.

2.0 To investigate whether the editor does have a basic understanding ofParliamentary Practice and Procedure

Maintained that the editor was not clear on Parliamentary Procedure.

3.0 To investigate the allegation that the article promotes division andanimosity among Members of the august House

Stated that the article was divisive. He pointed out that the issue ofParliamentarians and Speaker being called stooges is an insult to the entire nationbecause the Honorable are chosen by the people.

4.0 To investigate whether the article conforms to ethics of journalism.


14/26

14

The article violated ethics moreso because it was subjective and very insultive toHon. Members.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

He recommended that Journalists must be well educated; at least theyshould have a Diploma in Journalism.

There must be a Media Bill which would guide the media houses

Parliamentary reporters should be properly trained and accredited

4.9 WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY RUFIA (OFFICIAL ON HUMAN LAW)

On the question of whether the article on page 16 of the Times of Swaziland

Sunday newspaper (July 1 2007) constitutes a libel and to what extent the freedom

of the press is protected in this regard -

INTRODUCTION

The test applied in courts in other jurisdictions to determine what amounts to libel

is stated in the law1 which provides that

Every malicious publication by writing, printing, picture, effigy, sign, radio

broadcasting or which shall in any other manner transmit the human voice or

reproduce the same from records or other appliances or means, which shall tend -

1. To expose any living person to hatred, contempt, ridicule or obloquy, or to

deprive him of the benefit of public confidence or social intercourse; or

2. To expose the memory of one deceased to hatred, contempt, ridicule or

obloquy; or

3. To injure any person, corporation or association of persons in his or their

business or occupation, shall be libel.


15/26

15

To this end, in order to determine whether an article is libelous, one needs to

consider the nature of the article in contention and answer the following questions

1. Is it the truth

2. Is it offensive

3. Is the article merely giving information to the general public or does it

amount to hate speech (one must also look at if the article can instigate

violence or adverse reaction from the general public)

4. Has the inherent right to dignity of the person(s) referred to in the article

been violated

On the question of whether the article under consideration is the truth, the Alaska

Supreme Court in the case of Elizabeth Pitka2 in reversing the verdict of the trial

court stated that the truth of a defamatory statement is an absolute defense to an

action of defamation.

The Supreme Court also ruled that the newspaper in this case should have had the

opportunity to raise the defense that the statements in the headlines were true.Under the common law truth is an absolute defense and would constitute a

complete justification for the statements.

On the second question of whether the statement was offensive, the test applied in

this case is if statement is defamatory on its face, the law assumes that the

individuals reputation has been injured.

On the other hand, if the false statements are not defamatory per say, the injured

party must prove that he or she was directly harmed in some way by the

statements. To be defamatory, the false statements must relate to the individuals

professional performance. Once the statements are determined to be libelous then


16/26

16

the amount of damages are decided based on how serious the plaintiffs reputation

was harmed.

Thirdly, in determining whether the article was merely giving information to the

general public or if it does amount to hate speech, one has to consider if the article

can instigate violence or adverse reaction from the general public. In the statement

of the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) it case of National Party

Vs Maharaj Kasrils and Mokaba,3 it was stated that

For speech to fall outside the protection of the Constitution it must comply with the

following requirements -

a. the speech must advocate hatred;

b. the target group must have been subjected to the hate speech

because of their race, ethnicity, gender or religion; and

c. the speech must amount to an incitement to cause harm.

If the article was merely in pursuit of the truth, within the context of fair polit ical

comment and in the public interest4 it might not be said to amount to hate speech.

In addition, if nothing in the article can be linked to or construed to be referring to arace ethnicity, gender or religions, then it cannot be said that the article

constitutes hate speech.

The final test, to determine if the article constitutes libel is that there must have

been a violation of the inherent right to dignity of the person(s) against which the

article was directed. Everyone has a corresponding duty to have the dignity of

others respected and protected.

3 Report in terms of Section 15 of the Human Rights Commission Act, 1994 (Act No 54 of 1994)

4 This was stated in the letter dated 28 May in the case of National Party Vs Mahraj Kasrils and

Makaba (see note 2 above).


17/26

17

In the case stated above, it was contended that the inherent right of Mr. de Klerk

had been violated. This was also based on the fact that Mr. de Klerk is a senior

politician and, in a democracy as a leader of the opposition, he is entitled to

respect and dignity, which is in accordance with his status in society. Failure to

render such respect and honour would have grave consequences for the upholding

of democracy and the duty of trust that should be accorded to someone of his

stature.

The thrust of the complaint is that the complainants right to have their dignity

respected has been impaired by the statements reported and that under these

circumstances; the right to human dignity should take precedence over the right to

freedom of expression. Alternatively, that the right to freedom of expression did

not extend so far as to justify an infringement of the right to dignity.

CONCLUSION

One must look at the general information being passed in the article to determine if

the article constitutes a libel. After a careful consideration of the position of the law

under other jurisdictions, it is settled that the law is clear on what constitutes alibelous document.

Once this has been determined, the person(s) whos right has been violated by the

libelous article needs to prove that he or she has suffered substantial damage by

virtue of the violation before a meaningful compensation can be awarded by the

court of law.

clueless when it comes to the constitution, a document they supposedly approved.

To them SWEEPING STATEMENTS AGAINST MPS IN THE ARTICLE

Prince Guduza must be ashamed of himself


18/26

18

that he didnt see the urgency in the matter that is simple to a grade 1 child

The truth is that the MPs didnt have enough guts to go for someone else who

would handle this job properly, to this decision was to lament the lack of adequate

people to lead the legislators.

The foolishness the MPs display while pretending to be engaging in meaningful

debate and the mere fact that those very MPs have combined to form some little

cliques within the House are so transparent

let me end by saying that perhaps the reason MPs couldnt tell the difference

and couldnt care less is that they are what could be the problem really, when they

dont even know the document?

a man who must rally count himself lucky to occupy that position in the first

place

It must be pointed out that Prince Guduza is lucky to occupy that seat because

the MPs failed to see thedanger in getting him to replace Sgayoyo Magongo.

if prince Guduza displays such ignorance while still Speaker of the House, there

is no doubt in my mind that our Parliament would have also gone to the dogs.

the foolishness the MPs display while pretending to be engaging in meaningful

debate and the mere fact that those very MPs have combined

he is confirming peoples feelings that because of his royalty status, he is

therefore to safeguard that interest and not that of the people

he is old enough to draw that line to make an intelligent decision


19/26

19

but with the arrogance which he displayed this past week, he is showing us all

that he wouldnt be bothered what the rest of us think of him and how he carries his

job, so long as his cronies are satisfied.

MPs couldnt tell the difference and couldnt care less is that they are clueless

when it comes to the constitution, a document which they supposedly approved.

5.0 SUBMISSION BY VUKANI MAZIYA STVA DIRECTOR

1.0 To investigate the alleged abuse of Freedom of Expression to insultHonorable Members and bring the office of the Hon Speaker intodisrepute

He said there is no absolute freedom of Expression because there are limits.


Though not judgemental, he stressed the importance of training of Journalistson Parliamentary Reporting.


Non committal on this issue

4.0 To investigate whether the article conforms to ethics of journalism.

It does not conform to ethics of journalism since it is bias and insultive. Alsoput the Honourable House into disrepute. He took great exception to the use ofvulgar words like stooges to insult Honourable Members who are peoplesrepresentatives.

5.1 SUBMISSION BY MR. MARTIN DLAMINI TIMES OMBUDSMAN

He stated that the primary responsibility of an Ombudsman is to listen tocomplaints and make necessary corrections. Since there was not complaint lodgedagainst the initial story and the subsequent comment of the Editor, there wasnothing the Ombudsman could do. Needless to state, the Ombudsman can onlyact when a complaint has been made.


20/26

20

1.0 To investigate the alleged abuse of Freedom of Expression to insultHonorable Members and bring the office of the Hon Speaker into disrepute

He said there is freedom of Expression and fortunately for Swazis it is protected inthe countrys the Constitution.


He regards the editor as a mature journalist who understands procedural issues. .


Declined to comment on this issue.

4.0 To investigate whether the article conforms to ethics of journalism

Believes that no ethics were violated.

5.2WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY THE EDITOR (MBONGENI MBINGO)

Defending my opinion:

I am not a journalist, or writer, to pick a fight for the heck of it. I am normally alsovery respective, aware of my boundaries and my responsibility as editor and Swaziliving (and always will be) in Swaziland. I do not write for the sake of it either. I dowrite because there is a point to be made, and that there is an argument to bestimulated. I dont often write because I want to simply start a debate, though I amfully aware that one of the key things needed for a progressive and democraticnation is dialogue and to stimulate debate is a move in that direction.

I have, over the years, learned that journalism does not allow journalists or editors,carte blanche to write anyhowat least responsible journalists and editors. Ours isnation building, and to do that takes a lot of responsibility of the issues we writeabout. I take a lot of responsibility in my writing, because that to me is how one canearn respect for the job that he does.

This country, however, while having a constitution that grants us a bill of rights thatarguably compares with the rest of the world, still struggles to accept that thisdocument is the supreme law of the land that we all have to live by it. Theconstitution offers us journalists and every living soul of this country, freedom ofexpression, thought and opinion.


21/26

21

But, it does not give that right without securing the next persons right, which issimply to say the right to expression has its own boundaries. I for one, knows thisand live by it because we cant always be right, and we cant run roughshod overother peoples rights so that we enjoy ours.

Freedom of expression simply means that I am free to expression my opinion if itdoes not infringe on the next persons, and I am fully aware th at when it does, thenext person has a lot of options to exercise their opinions. Therefore I have got toaccept a person can have a differing opinion to mine, I am not and cannot alwaysbe right, a person reserves his rightespecially in our caseto demand to beheard too (right to reply) or take up legal action if defamed.

Having said that, I must point out that ever since The House of Assembly agreed toinstitute a probe to ascertain whether or not I had overstepped my boundary in myarticle Our Worst Fears Confirmed, I have looked at the article countless number

of times. I have read every word and paragraph and am still feel I was still withinreasonable bounds of freedom of expression. The article, which raised the furoreof Members of Parliamentand I now understand the Speaker of the House ofAssemblydid not tarnish the image of the House as it was alleged during thedebate in the House.

Rather, what the article served was to argue a certain point. The article wastopical, fair and well argued. It also was about an issue that concerned all Swaziswho were told to defend the constitution as their supreme law. I am one of thosepeople. When the king said he would be the constitutions number one defender,he wasnt merely just saying that, or endorsing it (constitution), he was telling all ofus to take the constitution as ours and fight for it. So when the honourable Memberof Parliament Mfomfo Nkhambule raised his concern over a meeting that wasoutside of Parliament but purporting to look into certain clauses of the constitution,I had every right as a journalist, editor and Swazi to sit up and notice.

I certainly noticed his argument and call for explanation the first day he raised thematter, and I supported the way that he felt the second day he raised the matter inParliament and was duly told to shut up. The MP, it must be understood, used thesame standing orders when bringing into the house the motion. He was not told heused the wrong standing orders. Rather what he was told was that the ministerresponsible for that issue was out of the country due to health reasons, but assoon as he returned, the MP would be at liberty to raise the matter.

Consequently, when the minister returned to Parliament the next time, the MPstood on the same standing order to seek a response, as had been promised.It was then that the Speaker could now say the MPs matter was not urgent, andthat he was quoting a wrong standing order.


22/26

22

It was then that the MP retaliated emotionally and said he felt he was beinghumiliated and made a fool. It was then that the MP argued the Speaker wastreating him unfairly. It was in that respect, therefore, that I approached my article,and basing it in the manner the MP felt as a result of the treatment accorded himby the MP. My point was to say the Speaker was wrong, and I substantiated my

reasons for it, hence the reason the article goes on to review how the Speaker wasappointed to that demanding position. The people, especially journalists, cannot befickle and therefore it is essential the background to his election to the position wasbrought up.

As a columnist, the Honourable Committee must understand I play the role of acommentator, someone analyzing matters and issues of the day. This is where theissue of the opinion comes in, because it is how I look at things that matters. I dontnecessarily have to interview the people for what I am writing about. I am simplyexpressing my opinion, based on what has been reported in the media. I am simplyreacting.

Likewise, I reacted to the events in Parliament, by finding that the Speakers actionwas unfair towards MP Nkhambule. I felt it was wrong to say the matter was noturgent because we were all aware by then that there was a meeting taking place atNkhanini and which we were told through Cabinet office, had something to do withthe constitution and in particular looking at clauses regarding the electionscommission and the boundaries commission.The Swazi people, I argue, deserve to know what role the MPs, the legislatorselected by the people and who must speak for the people, play in this. This is why Isided with MP Nkhambule in the urgency of the matter. However, I can accept acounter argument from the Speaker on why the matter was not urgent, something Ifelt the honourable Speaker could have pursued if he had felt the argument waswrong. Such is what dialogue is about.

I also sided with the manner that MP Nkhambule felt he was treated, largelybecause I had been aware that he had raised the matter previously, and thereforecould not understand why it was not being entertained when the minister was inthe House. I am aware of course that perhaps the Speaker exercised his right butthen again, this he could still say, without the need of a Parliamentary probe.

This leads me to say that we have a right to criticize the SpeakerandParliamentbecause we are the voice of the people and they are put there by thepeople. The Speakers position is a political one and there can be no escaping theamount of spotlight that shines on him every single day he occupies it. To expectthat he would not be subject to criticism would be folly and to expect that we arenot going to be harsh on him is undermining the importance of the position.

I should also point out that as politicians, the Speaker and the Members ofParliament need to develop a thick skin to criticism because that is part and parcelof their job. The press as the fourth estate must always do its job of keeping


23/26

23

everyone on their tours, and therefore cannot be seen to be muzzledwhich iswhat it will look like when MPs disagree with an opinion to the extent of constitutinga probe. I have to conclude by pointing out of course, and reemphasizing the pointthat there is no malice in my article, and there was non intended. There is only theissue of taste, which can be the subject of another debate.

MPs can not start now disagreeing with the way people see things, that is not howthings work. I have attended several courses on political reporting, and everywhereI go, I am schooled to hold politicians accountable for their actions. Public officialsmust be more open to public scrutiny and they must tolerate comment and criticismthan ordinary citizens because they have sought and attained public office, theyuse public money and they are supposed to be accountable to the public. Let mealso pint that the freedom to openly criticize and scrutinize public officials, be itaccurate or inaccurate criticism is a cornerstone of robust democracy.

Here, I did nothing wrong, and I find it absurd that we have wasted the public funds

to constitute a probe over a matter that would have needed a phone call from thataggrieved person and in which he would have been allowed to voice his ownopinion. We are now governed by the constitution and we must all abide by it.

5.3SUBMISSION BY MNDENI VILAKATI FROM ATTORNEY GENERALS

OFFICE

He thanked the Committee for the invitation and stated categorically that there wasno Contempt of Parliament in this case.

1.0 To investigate the alleged abuse of Freedom of Expression to insultHonorable Members and bring the office of the Hon Speaker into disrepute.

The Columnist did not abuse the Freedom of Expression.

2.0 To investigate whether the editor does have a basic understanding ofParliamentary Practice and Procedure.

Non comment on this issue.


He said that he was not too sure if the article did to promote division and animosityamong MPs.


24/26

24

4.0 To investigate whether the article conforms to ethics of journalism

It does because it merely refers to something that happened and the Columnist

was expressing his personal opinion.


25/26

25

Findings and Recommendations

1.0 Terms of Reference No 1

1.1 It is the finding of the Committee that the Times Sunday Editor didnot abuse freedom of the press more so because he wasexpressing his personal opinion.

1.2 The Committee recommends that the Editor should be cleared ofthis allegation.


2.1 It is the finding of the Committee that the Times Sunday Editor lacks a

basic understanding of Parliamentary Practice and Procedure. Worsestill, he does not comprehend the interpretation and the contextual usage of Standing Order No 58.

2.2 The Committee recommends that the Rt. Hon Prime Minister togetherwith the Minister for Public Service and Information should consultmedia stakeholders like the Media Institute of Southern Africa with theview to holding workshops on Parliamentary Practice and Procedure for

journalists covering Parliament. Furthermore, should put in placemechanisms for the accreditation of Parliamentary Reporters.Thereafter, report progress within eight weeks.


3.1 It is the finding of the Committee that the comment of the TimesSunday Editor did not promote division and animosity among Hon.Members of the august House . It brought about different view pointswhich are a vital ingredient of a lively debate.

3.2 The Committee recommends that the Editor should be cleared ofthis allegation.

4.0 Terms of Reference 4

4.1 It is the finding of the Committee that the Times Sunday Editor has failedto observe journalism ethics of objectivity and accuracy.

4.2 The Committee recommends that the Minister for Public Service andInformation together with media stakeholders should hold workshops onthe importance of Ethics of Journalism.


26/26

Terms of Reference No 5

5.1 It is the finding of the Committee that media stakeholders have dragged

their feet in establishing a Self Regulatory Media ComplaintsCommission that was recommended by a House of Assembly SelectCommittee in 1997. The absence of such a Commission has denied thepublic the fundamental right to lodge complaints and seek reddress onissues of poor reporting.

5.2 The Committee recommends that the Minister for Public Service andInformation should pilot a Media Council Bill within eight weeks.

5.3 It is the finding of the Committee that there are inherent difficulties andloopholes in the laws of Defamation and Libel that makes the process to

be arduous, time consuming and very expensive

5.4 The Committee recommends that the Minister for Public Service andInformation should pilot a bill within eight weeks dealing with issues ofdefamation and libel in order to make the process less costly and moreexpedient.

5.5 It is the finding of the Committee that the Parliamentary PriviledgesAct of 1967 needs serious review

5.6 The Committee recommends that the Parliamentary Priviledges Act

of 1967 should be amended to be in line with the recently amendedStanding Orders and also conform to the spirit and dictates of theConstitution.

Not Guilty Verdict:

Cognisant of the above findings and recommendations, also thefundamental principle of Freedom of Expressionenshrined in the countrysConstitution (Bill of Rights), the Committee recommends that the Editorshould not be found guilty of the charge of Contempt of Parliament sincehe was expressing his personal opinion.

_____________________ _________HON. Dr T.T THWALA THANDO DLAMINICOMMITTEE CHAIRPERSON COMMITTEE CLERK

Documents

Swazi Select Ctte Report Contempt Times Sunday Editor