for under Chapter II of the Constitution. It states that in a series of court cases, Ngwenya finally won in the
Court of Appeal, whose decision was contested by the Government.
9. The Complainant states that upon failing in the courts to suppress the opposition, the Government opted
to unlawfully 1 repeal the Constitution through the unprecedented promulgation of the King's Proclamation
to the Nation of April 12, 1973. 2
10. The Complainant states that King Sobhuza II assumed supreme authority by vesting executive,
legislative and judicial powers of the State to himself. The Complainant submits that supremacy of the
Monarchy was reaffirmed by King Mswati III after he assumed the Throne on 25 April 1986.
11. The Complainant argues that the idea of supremacy of the King and Monarchy is inherently inconsistent
with constitutionalism, democracy and good governance. The concentration of power in the hands of one
person or institution, it avers, is inherently not conducive to the protection, promotion and enjoyment of
fundamental human rights basic freedoms and civil liberties. 3
12. The Complainant avers that to prove beyond any doubt, in November 2008 the PeopleâEUR(TM)s
United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO) and its Youth League, the Swaziland Youth Congress
(SWAYOCO) were banned and listed under the infamous Suppression of Terrorism Act N0. 3 of 2008. Its
leaders were arrested, charged and tried under the Act, and one of its members Sipho Jele died in custody
after he was arrested during the Workers' Day Commemoration on 1 May 2010.
13. The Complainant avers that the people of Swaziland have through peaceful means, campaigned that
the country should return to just and democratic constitutional governance through a people-driven
democratic Constitution based on the rule of law.
14. The Complainant states that not all the people of Swaziland were involved in the crafting of the 2005
Constitution. It avers that the Court of Appeal in Jan Sithole N.O. (in his capacity as a Trustee of the
Constitutional Assembly-Trust) v The Swaziland Government 4 refused to allow legitimate peoples'
organizations - banned political associations and organized trade unions to participate in the making of the
constitution of the country. It states that the Court refused to give a liberal meaning to the provisions of
section 4 of Decree No. 2 of 1996 5 and found that such organisations did not have the right to approach
the Court for relief. Neither were they entitled to participate in the constitution-making process because of
the ban placed on them by the King's Proclamation.
15. The Complainant states that the process of making a Constitution should be carried under a legal and
political environment that is conducive for the effective and meaningful participation of all the people
regardless of their political opinions and political affiliation.
Articles alleged to have been violated
16. The Complainant alleges that the Respondent State has violated Articles 1 , 2 , 7 , 10 , 11 , 13 , 19 , 20
and 26 of the African Charter.
Prayers
17. The Complainant prays that the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (the Commission)
should:
1. Give an order that the conception, crafting and adoption of the Swaziland Constitution 2005 was
done in violation of the African Charter in particular, in total disregard for the Commission's decision
2