On 16 September 2016, the High Court in Swaziland declared several provisions in the Sedition and Subversive Activities and Suppression of Terrorism Acts invalid. In a majority decision, Judges Annandale and Mamba held that the provisions relating to the definition of the offences of sedition, subversion and terrorism and the designation of an organisation as a terrorist entity were unconstitutional because they infringed the right to freedom of expression, association and administrative justice. Judge Hlophe delivered a dissenting judgment.
This case combines four separate cases brought by political activists in Swaziland who had been charged with terrorism, sedition and subversion. These activists had been charged with terrorism and/or sedition and subversion for their conduct, including wearing t-shirts supporting a banned political group, speaking at a rally and participating in a march calling for an electoral boycott. In 2014, the activists filed applications arguing that the overbroad and vague definitions of the offences in the legislation were an unjustifiable infringement of the rights to freedom of expression and association because the conduct that had led to their criminal charges constituted legitimate comment. Some activists facing terrorism charges also argued that the Suppression of Terrorism Act, which criminalised the mere support of a group designated as a terrorist entity and prevented individuals from challenging that designation, infringed their right to administrative justice.
The Court held that the state respondents in the case had not provided any evidence explaining why the laws – which they admitted infringed the right to freedom of expression – would be justifiable in a democratic society. The Court also emphasised that the rules of natural justice apply to individuals who are members of a so-called terrorist entity.
“We are absolutely delighted at the outcome of this case”, said Kaajal Ramjathan-Keogh, SALC’s executive director. “The sedition and terrorism laws have been used in Swaziland to stifle legitimate dissent for many years. This judgment is a welcome recognition of the need to ensure that the constitutionally protected rights to freedom of expression and association are given full effect in the Kingdom.”
SALC supported two of the four cases in this matter, and Adv Peter Hathorn SC, from the Cape Bar and Adv Jonathan Berger of the Johannesburg Bar, represented the activists involved in those cases. Leo Gama of Leo Gama Attorneys in Swaziland was the attorney of record.
For more information, contact:
Anneke Meerkotter, Executive Director, SALC: +27 (0)10 596 8538, AnnekeM@salc.org.za.
Melusi Simelane, Civil Rights Programme Manager SALC: +27 (0)10 596 8538, MelusiS@salc.org.za.
- Sedition Charges Impact Freedom of Expression – 23 November 2022
- SALC calls for recusal of 2 judges – 18 August 2021
- Refusing bail of MPs reeks of politics, not justice – 20 August 2021
- A chance for the strengthening of due process of law in Eswatini – 15 June 2022
- Eswatini supreme court judgement constitutes a threat to the rule of law – 22 September 2022
- Governments appeal of court judgment questioned – September 2022