LAST Friday the Mbabane High Court in Swaziland sentenced the editor of The Nation, Bheki Makhubu, to two years in prison without an option of a fine. Similarly a human rights lawyer, Thulani Maseko, was condemned to the same fate.
Only a week before Swaziland was in the news for the country’s prison authorities barring a copy of The Nation from being taken into prison. This is only the tip of the iceberg as far as Swaziland’s violations of the freedom of expression and of the media is concerned over the years.
So This Is Democracy, the Media Institute of Southern Africa 2013 Report, catalogues the country’s media freedom violations, among them the beating of Eugene Dube, a freelance journalist writing for the state-owned Swazi Observer, the Managing Director of the state-owned Swazi Observer Newspaper Group, Alpheous Nxumalo, vowing not to allow any pro-democracy voices to be published in his stable and Dr Maxwell Mthembu, Chairperson of the Swaziland Television Authority (STVA) being fired.
Now many would wonder why Swaziland is of interest to us as Namibians. As a journalist I am concerned this is happening in this era.
Certainly in this regard Swaziland figuratively speaking being a stone’s throw from Namibia, and thus a not-too-distant neighbour, one cannot but be worried that this may sooner or later rub off on Namibia. In my mother tongue there is a saying that the wood near the fire should not laugh at the one in the fire. This very much applies in this case to us Namibian journalists that we cannot ignore what is happening in Swaziland as distant, or dismiss it as having nothing to do with us.
Because who knows what can happen tomorrow, it may just be a Namibian journalist.
We are very much aware as journalists of the pent-up impatience and intolerance that often has been demonstrated by some of our politicians, and for that matter by some Members of Parliament.
Yet our country is often praised to the point of even being revered the world over for its record as far as media freedom is concerned.
Yes, freedom of expression and including that of the media is not only enshrined in our Constitution but it is guaranteed. But can we take it that this shall be forever – given the prevalent mistrust and sometimes abhorrence of the media in this country that at times have bordered on schizophrenic disdain, if not fear for the media and the operators thereof, the media practitioners?
One would not wish a situation where Namibia shall in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) be the media star or darling because should that be the case the rotten media apples surrounding her sooner or later are likely to as much rot her.
Thus, for a free, independent and pluralistic media in Namibia to prosper and thrive she also needs the same environment if such freedoms are to be everlasting.
Swaziland is member state of SADC, as much as Namibia. The essence of belonging to this regional bloc is no doubt for this country to share good values, and if one of them goes astray, for the others to show her the right way.
I for one do not subscribe to the ancient notion of the Organisation of African Unity (OAU), now the African Union (UN), of non-interference in the so-called affairs of member states.
This somehow seems sublimely the stance one is detecting among SADC member states.
That is why hitherto one has been seeing and hearing little, or is likely to hear and see little in the future, mark this column, concerning the imprisonment of these citizens of Swaziland.
But if that is the case then for what is SADC? Surely SADC member states are partially, if not primarily associated with this regional bloc for sharing the same democratic values and principles. One of these values is media freedom.
Article 20 of the SADC Protocol on Culture, Information and Sport states that “State Parties shall take the necessary measures to ensure the development of media that is editorially independent and conscious of their obligations to the public and greater society.”
But if one member state starts to violate such values and principles, albeit in her own backyard, without a whimper from the rest of the members of the community, then SADC cannot be anything but suspect. Then SADC cannot be more than just a club of likeminded members whose beliefs in democratic values and principles can be as superficial as can be.
As members of SADC it is incumbent upon any other member state to protect citizens of a member country whose rights and freedoms are infringed upon.
Because in the letter and spirit of the SADC protocol, one would like to believe that the citizens of one member country are as much citizens of any other member country.
Thus all SADC should enjoy equal human rights and freedoms, the artificial borders nothwithstanding.
An injury to one citizen or citizens of a SADC member state should as much be an injury to all of the citizens of SADC member states.
This in as much as an attack on a singular SADC member state should be an attack on the whole SADC region and all other SADC member states should rally in the defence of the territorial integrity of a fellow member state, which by extension is the territorial integrity of SADC.
In the latter scenario precedents abound but strangely one has as yet to see any boldness on the part of SADC member states where the rights and freedoms of individuals in any of the SADC member states have been threatened.
And the examples of such infringements abound. More than being united by the confluence of their decadences, SADC leaders must be united in the firm belief in the principles of democracy, and the resolve to rally together when such are being threatened wherever in any of the SADC region, and beyond in the world.
As much the poverty in which many of the region’s citizenry seems to be drowning, should, as much be a unifying fact irrespective of their respective regional geographical locations.
By Kae Matundu-Tjiparuro