African Histories and Modernities

Series Editors Toyin Falola The University of Texas at Austin Austin, TX, USA

Matthew M. Heaton Virginia Tech Blacksburg, VA, USA This book series serves as a scholarly forum on African contributions to and negotiations of diverse modernities over time and space, with a particular emphasis on historical developments. Specifcally, it aims to refute the hegemonic conception of a singular modernity, Western in ori- gin, spreading out to encompass the globe over the last several decades. Indeed, rather than reinforcing conceptual boundaries or parameters, the series instead looks to receive and respond to changing perspectives on an important but inherently nebulous idea, deliberately creating a space in which multiple modernities can interact, overlap, and confict. While privileging works that emphasize historical change over time, the series will also feature scholarship that blurs the lines between the historical and the contemporary, recognizing the ways in which our changing understandings of modernity in the present have the capacity to affect the way we think about African and global histories.

Editorial Board Akintunde Akinyemi, Literature, University of Florida, Gainesville Malami Buba, African Studies, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Yongin, South Korea Emmanuel Mbah, History, CUNY, College of Staten Island Insa Nolte, History, University of Birmingham Shadrack Wanjala Nasong’o, International Studies, Rhodes College Samuel Oloruntoba, Political Science, TMALI, University of South Africa Bridget Teboh, History, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth

More information about this series at http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/14758 Hlengiwe Portia Dlamini A Constitutional History of the Kingdom of Eswatini (Swaziland), 1960–1982 Hlengiwe Portia Dlamini University of the Free State Bloemfontein, South Africa

African Histories and Modernities ISBN 978-3-030-24776-8 ISBN 978-3-030-24777-5 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24777-5

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG, part of Springer Nature 2019 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifcally the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microflms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specifc statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affliations.

Cover illustration: Fabian Plock/Alamy Stock Photo

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland Preface

I took on the challenge of writing A Constitutional History of the Kingdom of Eswatini (Swaziland), 1960–1982 to fll a gap in Swazi constitutional history that Swazi historians have avoided due to its sensitive nature. Thus, a particular era in the constitutional history of Swaziland has remained a neglected feld of historical scholarship. This fact is com- pounded by the specifcity of Swaziland’s constitutional developments in Southern Africa where, during the colonial and post-colonial era, the Swazi political scene was dominated by traditionalists, in the person of King Sobhuza II, rather than leaders of modern political parties. This scenario is puzzling to those not initiated in Swazi studies and needs to be unpacked. Swaziland was a British dependency like other erstwhile British colonies in Africa, but there is a marked difference in its constitutional development. How do we explain the resilience and consolidation of Swazi monarchism in the context of the British colonial school of con- stitutionalism against a backlash of aggressive competing political party leaders? What were the substantive issues that dominated the constitutional debates in Swaziland and why were they so contentious? And what was the outcome of the heated constitutional engineering in the colonial and post-colonial periods up to 1982? This book is concerned with the complexity and specifcity of Swaziland’s constitutional history from 1960, when the constitutional processes started in earnest, to 1982, when King Sobhuza, the ferocious nationalist leader that led Swaziland to independence, departed this life. As was typical with British decolonization politics in Africa, Britain laid down

v vi PREFACE the Westminster parliamentary constitutional framework and involved the various Swazi stakeholders—the monarchists, the white Swazis, and the leaders of modern political parties—for constitutional talks. The monarchists were disadvantaged from the beginning of the talks because of the British post-World War II decolonization policy, which envisaged the transfer of power to the Western-educated political leaders, rather than to the traditional rulers. Britain intended to establish what they deemed to be a new ‘modernizing political order’ under modern political leaders that emanated from ballot box democracy. Power was not to be transferred to King Sobhuza II, Swaziland’s Ngwenyama [the lion], who was an offshoot of the Dlamini dynasty. Swazi political party leaders were in total agreement with the British that the Swazi king should be assigned a mere token role in Swazi politics, as with the Queen of England, and not perform an effective role. These political party leaders enjoyed the external support of Ghana’s Kwame Nkrumah. The monarchists smelled danger from both the British and the modern political leaders at the onset of the decolonization process. As a result, they campaigned hard for the Swazi traditional political status quo should be upheld, and for its integration within Britain’s modernizing Westminster constitutional framework. Consequently, they stood against the implementation of full-scale liberal democracy in the shape of one- man-one-vote on the grounds that it was ‘unAfrican’ and very ‘alien’. The benefciary of the post-colonial state was not to be a ‘commoner’ but, rather, the ‘natural ruler of the Swazi people’, who was the Swazi Ngwenyama. They rejected the idea of the existence of political parties as unwarranted Westernization, and argued forcefully that political power in Swaziland was not up for grabs between contestants because there was no such practice in Swazi culture and tradition. If King Sobhuza did not fnd the British a reliable ally, he could count on the White Swazis and apartheid South Africa. By rejecting the whole idea of one-man-one-vote and subscribing to the upholding of private property, the White Swazis and South Africa felt safe with the King. The White Swazis owned more than 70% of the land in Swaziland, which they had expro- priated under the 1907 Land Act, and they controlled the entire colonial economy. They were therefore fearful of the political rhetoric and postur- ing of the political party leaders, who were branded ‘Progressives’. Because of Swaziland’s geographical location inside the belly of South Africa, with which it shares over 80% of its borders, there were concerns about the rise of radical nationalist ideas that could be harmful to that bastion of apartheid. PREFACE vii

King Sobhuza took advantage of the fears of White Swazis and South Africa to establish a political alliance of convenience with them against the political party leaders and their British supporters. While rejecting the idea of universal adult suffrage and political parties, Sobhuza con- ceded that Whites could be allowed to vote according to the Western tradition of secret ballot, but that Africans would be restricted to the choice of candidates for the legislature by acclamation with royal sanc- tion. In order to ensure White support, King Sobhuza II took the unpopular stance of advocating that Whites, who numbered a mere 10,000, should be accorded equal representation in the Legislature as Blacks, who numbered 270,000. The monarchists’ justifcation for this was that the Whites were signifcant contributors to the colonial economy, and their economic weight should be compensated. The political viewpoints of the Progressives, on the one hand, and the monarchists and their White allies, on the other, were so diametri- cally opposed and unbridgeable that constitutional talks could barely make any progress in Swaziland. The British fnally convened the Swazi constitutional stakeholders to London in January 1963 for the London Constitutional Conference. The talks were to no avail, as each party feared giving in to the other because it was tantamount to political suicide. Britain imposed the 1963 Constitution on the Swazis and proceeded to schedule elections for June 1964. The elections were the determining factor in the political history of Swaziland, because they were expected to produce the Legislature from which the Constitutional Committee responsible for designing Swaziland’s independence constitution would be drawn. The nature and direction of Swaziland’s constitution was to be determined by the winners of the June 1964 elections. But King Sobhuza had no political party, implying that he could not contest the June 1964 elections. The Whites and South Africa acted promptly by encouraging the King to found a political party, the Imbokodvo National Movement (INM), while the Whites on their part formed the United Swaziland Association (USA) to protect their inter- ests and property rights (which had already been guaranteed by the King), while supporting INM on the land and mineral issues. The royal INM and White USA quickly constituted an alliance to fght the elections against the Progressive parties, of which the most prominent was Dr. Ambrose Zwane’s Ngwane National Liberatory Congress (NNLC). The royal INM and the White USA won all the seats at the expense of viii PREFACE the Progressives, and this allowed the monarchists to shape Swaziland’s independence constitution. No sooner had the INM and USA started constitutional talks, than the two allies fell out. King Sobhuza, a cunning political fox, realized he longer needed the White USA because he had the overwhelming majority in the Legislature. He was therefore in a strong position to call the shots, and he reneged on the unpopular agreement that Whites should have equal representation in Parliament with Blacks in favour of one- man-one-vote. He betrayed the Whites to follow the will of the Swazi people, who wanted a non-racial society. The Whites also disagreed with the Swazi Black majority in ferce debates in Swaziland’s bicameral Legislature that King Sobhuza II should be allowed absolute power in the independence constitution. The Whites contended that there must be checks on the powers of the King in the spirit of modern governance, while the Swazis were adamant and maintained that all powers should go to the King. Britain was the fnal arbiter and bequeathed to Swaziland a constitutional monarchy with checks and balances on its attaining independence in 1968. In the post-colonial era, the Swazi monarchy persevered with constitutional monarchism forced down their throats by the British until 1973, when the independence constitution was torpedoed in what I have labelled a royal auto-coup d’état. This was followed by a period of constitutional void that King Sobhuza never flled before his demise. The King literally substituted himself for the constitution. This development refected not only the long-held desire of King Sobhuza to concentrate all powers in his hands, but also a common trend in the African continent, where there was a general move towards one-party rule and consti- tutionalized political monolithism. That constitutional developments in post-colonial Swaziland culminated in monarchical absolutism is beyond question. The three arms of government—the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary—belonged to the King. But this absolute political order has been qualifed as Swaziland’s brand of benevolent monarchical despotism. This is so because King Sobhuza II established an absolute monarchical order sprinkled with heavy doses of benevolence and paternalism. He was a true king of Swazis: he did not transform his kingdom into imprisonment camps and graveyards for his political opponents, unlike some of his contemporaries, such as Idi Amin of Uganda and Macias Nguema of Equatorial Guinea. At the time of Sobhuza II’s death, PREFACE ix

Swaziland was free of political prisoners, but not of absolutism, making his country a ‘paradise of human rights’ in an African continent that could be accurately labelled a stretch of human rights abuses.

Bloemfontein, South Africa Hlengiwe Portia Dlamini 2019 Acknowledgements

This book is evidence-based and I needed the assistance of many people in assembling the sources used. The cooperation of the staff of the Eswatini National Archives at Lobamba, the libraries at the University of Eswatini (Swaziland) and the University of Pretoria, the National Archives in the United Kingdom, and the Bodleian Libraries at Oxford was greatly appreciated. I would therefore like to express my profound gratitude to these archivists and librarians. They exhibited professional- ism, and kindly and generously assisted me in locating and ordering the material that I needed for this book. Financial challenges were obviously posed by the exorbitant cost of travelling and researching abroad. My unreserved gratitude goes to the Oppenheimer Memorial Trust and the International Studies Group at the University of the Free State for making funding available for my research in Eswatini, South Africa, and the United Kingdom. Without their fnancial support, I would not have been able to travel to distant venues for data collection. This book engaged me in a series of interviews with several Swazis by virtue of their direct involvement in the exercise of constitution-making, or their expertise in constitutional matters. My sincere thanks go to all these interviewees, and their families and relatives, who spared their time to sit with me. Their interviews were a very rewarding experience; they constituted the voice of Swazis in their constitutional history, and helped shape the direction of this book. I shall be forever indebted to all my interviewees for their time and frankness with me. Some of my invaluable

xi xii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS interviewees have passed on without seeing this book, but they remain in my memory and in my prayers. I would like to thank Professor I. Phimister, the anchor Senior Professor of the International Studies Group of the University of the Free State, from the bottom of my heart. He persisted in encouraging me to write this book. He is most defnitely very resourceful, and directly supported me in the most unimaginable and creative ways in realizing the writing of this book. Apart from sponsoring my academic trips to the USA, he also linked me up to a number of US and European univer- sities at which I had to present chapters of this book to academics who subjected them to serious scrutiny, and I benefted immensely from their rich, critical perspectives. These academic interactions helped me in artic- ulating and rethinking the course of this book and greatly improved its quality. Professor Phimister is, indeed, a superb mentor and motivator, and his invaluable support is what I really needed to accomplish the task of writing this book. Professor A. S. Mlambo, my doctoral supervisor at the University of Pretoria, is somebody I can never forget, because he has been a per- manent source of encouragement to me, and his inspiring supervisory methodology served as a beacon in the writing of this book. It was not just the methodology of historical writing that I acquired from him, but also what it meant to work under pressure. Because my manuscripts never remained on his table for long, I was compelled always to work exceedingly hard and to the best of my ability to keep pace with him. By working under someone as inspiring and erudite as Professor Mlambo, and reading his fresh publications at the same time, I defnitely learned a great deal from him. He continued to support me and follow up on my academic activities after I obtained my Ph.D. It was an absolute joy to work with him. Professor N. F. Awasom deserves a special mention in these acknowl- edgments for a singular reason: he made available his own publications and some thrilling, iconic works on constitutional history. His resources constituted a springboard for my intellectual journey along the path of constitutional history. To him, I owe a sincere debt of gratitude. I am very obliged for the extensive feedback I received from the series editors and the anonymous reviewers on the draft of this book. Their contributions impacted signifcantly on its quality. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS xiii

On a very personal note, I would like to thank the Lord Almighty for the gift of strength, good health, perseverance, and hope. To Him be given all the praise and glory. My parents were very supportive and meant everything to me. My father, Prince Majawonke Dlamini, literally became my driver, tirelessly taking me to Pretoria and to various places in Swaziland for interviews, most of which he arranged for me. To my mother, Inkhosikati Glory Ntombi Dlamini, I extend my loving gratitude. My brother, Mhlonishwa, and his wife, Inkhosikati Philile Dlamini, deserve special thanks for their care and availability each time I needed their assistance. My sister, Lenhle Dlamini, was magnetically and cheer- fully attached to me through my research on this book and kept my spir- its high. If she were not physically present, she kept in close contact with me in the follow-up of my research, and always had warm, cheerful, and generous words encouraging to me not to falter. Although several experts have gone through this the book and made useful comments, I would like to emphasize that any shortcomings are my exclusive responsibility. A pioneering book of this nature simply sets the pace for further debate and improvements, to which I am willing to commit myself. One thing is certain: a scholar is always a student willing to learn.

Bloemfontein, South Africa Hlengiwe Portia Dlamini 2019 Contents

Part I Introduction

1 Introduction 3

Part II Colonial Phase

2 The Major Players in the Making of the Independence Constitution of Swaziland (Eswatini) 33

3 The Beginning of the Great Constitutional Debate: Agreeing to Disagree 65

4 The Imposed 1963 Constitution, the Maiden Legislative and Executive Councils, and the Select Constitutional Committee 129

5 The 1967 Constitution, Internal Self-Government, and the 1968 Independence Constitution 183

xv xvi CONTENTS

Part III Post-Colonial Phase

6 The 1968 Westminster Constitution, the 1972 General Election, and Serious Challenges Confronting Constitutional Monarchism 237

7 From King Sobhuza II’s Auto-Coup D’état to the Era of Constitutional Void and Royal Benevolent Despotism 279

8 Conclusion 339

Appendix A: King Sobhuza II’s Speech of April 1960 349

Appendix B: Members of Parliament Under the Tinkhundla System 361

Index 363 List of Figures

Fig. 1.1 Map of Swaziland (Eswatini) and its neighbours (Source The US Central Intelligence Agency, courtesy of the Perry-Castañeda Library Map Collection) 10 Fig. 3.1 Swazi Delegates at the London Constitutional Conference, 28 January–12 February 1963. Names of delegates from left to right: J. M. B. Sukati, M. P. Nhlabasti; S. T. M. Sukati; P. L. Dlamini, A. K. Hlophe (Source ZUMA Press, Inc./Alamy Stock Photo) 105 Fig. 5.1 Leading opposition leader Dr A. Zwane and K. T. Samketi demonstrating at the entrance of Marlborough House, UK (Source Keystone Press/Alamy Stock photo) 226 Fig. 7.1 King Sobhuza II, dressed in traditional attire and barefoot to empathize with Swazi masses, September 6, 1968 (Source Eswatini National Archives) 306

xvii List of Tables

Table 3.1 Members of the Maiden Swazi Constitutional Committee 85 Table 3.2 Results of the EAC’s referendum on the Constitutional Committee’s proposals for a Constitution for Swaziland 110 Table 3.3 Delegates to Church House, London, Constitutional Conference on Swaziland in January 1963 118 Table 4.1 The January 1964 Referendum Results 143 Table 4.2 Members of the 1964 Legislative Council 172 Table 4.3 Members of the Executive Council 174 Table 4.4 The 1965 Constitutional Review Committee 177 Table 5.1 Constitutional Review Committee 185 Table 5.2 Results of general elections held in Swaziland on 19–20 April 1967 208 Table 5.3 Members of the Swazi National Assembly after the April 1967 general elections 210 Table 5.4 Senators elected by the House and appointed by King Sobhuza 212 Table 5.5 1967 ministers and assistant ministers 213 Table 5.6 Senate vote on amendment of government White Paper to give the Ngwenyama absolute power over minerals and mineral oils 224 Table 5.7 Members of the Swazi delegation to the UK to negotiate the Independence Constitution in February 1968 225 Table 6.1 The results of the May 1972 elections 254 Table 6.2 The members of the Special Tribunal to examine the Ngwenya citizenship affair 266

xix xx LIST OF TABLES

Table 7.1 Swaziland Royal Constitutional Committee 317 Table 7.2 Members of the Electoral Committee 322 Table 7.3 Members of Cabinet emanating from the tinkhundla system 327 Table 7.4 Deputy ministers and assistant ministers 327