SWAZILAND SHALL BE FREE! ONLY THE VISIONLESS AND SPINELESS SEE THE OPPOSITE

 A few days ago, one Laga-boy Mntungwa posted on Facebook that freedom in Swaziland will remain a dream. In his post titled, “WHY FREEDOM WILL REMAIN A DREAM FOR THE PEOPLE OF SWAZILAND?”, he mentions some of the reasons for his conclusion, albeit without offering any evidence for the allegations.

Since his assertions have also been raised by some people in the past, and will surely be raised by others in future, I thought it important that these issues be addressed. In my response to him, I reproduce some of his quotes as sub-headings and give a direct response thereunder.

1. “First of all we don't have Political Parties in Swaziland, but we have groups who call themselves Political Parties.”

Laga-boy’s claim that there are no political parties in Swaziland is obviously absurd. He knows for a fact that there are political parties though they remain banned since 12 April 1973. He does, of course, recognise that there are political parties (groups who call themselves political parties, as he says), hence he soon thereafter claims that these groups are “just there to poach donors so that their leadership can do nothing but to enrich themselves just like the Tinkhundla Regime.”

Thus, in Laga-boy’s world, there are groups in Swaziland who 1) poach donors, 2) for their leadership, 3) to enrich themselves, and 4) so that these leadership(s) live like the tinkhundla regime. Unfortunately, like all before him, he neglects to bring such evidence. He does not even care that he has not provided any evidence for such spurious claims. It is even worse that he claims that the members of political parties who have over the decades been victimised by the regime want to live like the tinkhundla regime. Does Mr Laga-boy understand what the regime does to those with dissenting voices? Surely, he cannot claim that he has not seen the regime’s wrath! How can members of banned parties ever live like the tinkhundla regime when in fact they operate illegally? Only Laga-boy knows! And all that knowledge lives only in his brain, not in reality.

Nonetheless, let us engage more on this question of “donors”. Others before him have alluded to this phenomenon as well – also without offering evidence. Let us, for now, ignore that Laga-boy has no actual knowledge of the existence of “donors” save for what he has heard from others who also offered no evidence to him, which he regurgitates in his post, predictably without bringing evidence or expanding on the matter.

Firstly, supposing that the existence of “donors” claims is true, whatever the actual source of the funds, where does Laga-boy and crew think political parties will ever get funds to wage the struggle? Does he think that moving groups of people (members) from one place to another is free? Does he think that they do not eat, drink, etc? If political parties do not go out there and scout for funds, how will they fund democracy campaigns? For instance, how does Laga-boy think that political parties would move their members from Nhlangano to Mbabane to take part in a march or rally? Often such measures have to be undertaken covertly. This demands even more funds. Nothing is ever free! Political parties should therefore never apologise for scouting for and receiving funds from any source, whether such sources are classified as “donors” or other classification.

Secondly, Laga-boy does not understand – and I bet he does not even care – what happens to those who dare their lives to actively take part in democracy campaigns or join political parties. Activists and members of political parties – particularly the more radical parties – often become unemployed and unemployable. Has Laga-boy and crew ever donated any funds to those who are kicked out of schools and tertiary institutions, for example, and rendered unemployable in Swaziland? That is the question he needs to reflect on, instead of attacking political parties for soliciting funding from other sources – internal and international. Dear Laga-boy, political parties often become home to the countless victims of the tinkhundla regime, who sometimes even get kicked out of their families, and these comrades cannot live without eating, drinking, shelter, food and all basic needs. The victims of the regime, those who have faced the worst wrath of the regime, remain grateful to the contribution of political parties with regard to picking up the pieces, and many of these victims have gone on to practically contribute to the growth of parties and generally the struggle for freedom. Will Laga-boy ever join with these victims in the struggle instead of castigating them? The jury is still out on that!

2. “It's even worse because even those groups they don't have a vision.”

Next, Laga-boy claims that Swaziland’s political parties “might have a mission but they absolutely have no vision,” hence, in his mind, they are trapped somewhere going nowhere – and thus “betraying the masses who believe in freedom.” Since Laga-boy is involved in an uncritical analysis on the role of political parties, he has failed to even give some back up to any of his claims. If he stands in opposition to the visions of the various political parties, he should state such opposition instead of claiming that they have a “mission” and “no vision”. I doubt he would ever be able to engage in such a discussion, however, since, as it appears, he has not even read any of the documents of the various political parties, let alone trace their history, including the trials and tribulations over the years.

3. “The second reason why freedom will continue to be a dream in Swaziland is because of the number of the so called Political Parties that exist in this country.”

At first Laga-boy claimed that there are no political parties in Swaziland, yet here he is claiming that there are too many political parties. Which is which, Mr Laga-boy? Either we have them or we do not! Nonetheless, let us, for now, ignore this obvious contradiction!

If the reader ever had any doubt whether Laga-boy had bothered to read up on the various revolutions that have happened in history, his point about too many parties should clear it up. He claims that since freedom has not been achieved yet, there is no point in having “so many political parties”. People who fail to do the simplest of tasks – read on the various ideologies or outlooks of the different political parties – often fall for such conclusions. The same applies to those who have not read on revolutions across the world.

In the history of struggles, the oppressed people have never organised themselves into one single political party. This is because of their different outlooks and objectives. Hence, they often decide to unite – together with workers’, students’ and civil society organisations – under one umbrella in the fight for a common goal. In the case of Swaziland, there has been in the past the Swaziland Democratic Alliance, and recently the Swaziland United Democratic Front. The Communist Party of Swaziland has for some time been advocating for the Liberation Front. Thus, Laga-boy’s fantasy that there will ever be one political party simply because freedom has not been achieved is just that; a fantasy! If only he could take a few steps to enter into the real world, he would understand that the struggle is a practical one, and if he participates in it he would realise that 1) individuals have different outlooks, 2) the organisations under which they unite also have different outlooks, and thus 3) the best thing that the various organisations can do under such circumstances is to unite under an umbrella organisation or front for a common minimum goal, in our case the goal of multi-party democracy. Laga-boy’s armchair approach has failed him yet again!

4. “The third reason why Swaziland will continue to dream and fantasize about freedom is that the leaders of these groups have a lot to lose as compared to the achievement of freedom”

Following his baseless accusations against the progressive movement, Laga-boy can only land on a baseless conclusion. There may be some truth, of course, that some individuals in the progressive movement may feel that they may have more to lose with a determined fight for freedom. But this is why those individuals are correctly classified as counterrevolutionaries. For the most part, democracy would be to the great benefit of most of the political parties, their members and the oppressed people of Swaziland.

Conclusion

I do realise that Laga-boy may be a student, and a member of the Swaziland National Union of Students. Thus, he is a young member of Swazi society. One of the most widespread problems among the youth of Swaziland – even when they are active in student politics – is that they still think that someone else will fight for them while they sit and analyse politics. Laga-boy is one of those. If he were to study the history of all revolutions, he would realise that many revolutions were sparked by the actions of young people, and many others were actually led by very young people. He would also realise that those revolutions advanced primarily because those young people stood up and waged the revolution. Revolutions have never been driven by armchair critics, though they may be helpful in the making of reflections as the struggle continues.

As Karl Marx remarked in 1845: Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; but the point is to change it! Swaziland shall be free. Only those who are brave enough to stand in a “freedom or death” struggle have a chance of bringing about that freedom; visionless spineless doubters will always point to problems but fail to show and lead the way forward!

A JOURNEY TO THE REAL SOBHUZA II THE DICTATOR OF SWAZILAND

Yesterday 22 July 2020 was Sobhuza II’s birthday, a public holiday in Swaziland. Many tinkhundla propagandists, as usual, did all they could to force-feed the public with the usual propaganda that Sobhuza was a hero of the people, and that the people of Swaziland should be grateful to him for Swaziland’s independence in 1968. Some went on to claim that he remains one of the most prominent African anti-colonial heroes, counting him along the likes of Kwame Nkrumah, Julius Nyerere and others.

Perhaps it is prudent that we consider more views on Sobhuza and his legacy.

I thus suggest that we try and see how Sobhuza appears from the viewpoint of Hlengiwe Portia Dlamini, a postdoctoral fellow in the International Studies Group at the University of the Free State, South Africa.  In 2019 she published a book titled “A Constitutional History of the Kingdom of Eswatini (Swaziland), 1960–1982”. This book followed her 2016 PHD Thesis titled, “Constitutional Developments in the Kingdom of Swaziland 1960-2005.”

At first, it may be discouraging to read on Sobhuza from someone seen to be hailing from the royal family, but I think we should undertake this risk. Hlengiwe Portia Dlamini is a daughter of Prince Majawonke Dlamini.

Below I reproduce some of the excerpts drawn from her book, focusing specifically on Swaziland’s decolonisation journey in the 1960s, with Sobhuza being one of the main players at the time. The excerpts focus more on the constitutional debates that were taking place in Swaziland from 1960 to 1963. From the brief below, it is quite easy for the reader to know and understand, with much better clarity, the type of person that Sobhuza was – at least from the lenses of the author Hlengiwe Portia Dlamini.

While the findings are lifted largely from her 2019 book, I have been forced to also add those from her 2016 PHD thesis. This is because it appears that some of the findings in the thesis were either not included in the book or were summarised, necessitating that I also add some of the excerpts from her thesis. To that end, I have made an indication in that regard by adding “THESIS” in brackets at the end of each particular paragraph – that is, where the statement is drawn from the 2016 thesis. Where I have not made an indication as to the source of the statement, the reader must assume that it comes from the 2019 book.

NB: I have not added any of my opinions in the excerpts below. The reader is also strongly encouraged to read directly from the original – the book and the PHD thesis – and get the full picture, and thus make their own conclusions.

Excerpts from the author Hlengiwe Portia Dlamini appear below

1.    The Swazi political platform was clearly divided between the Moderates and the Progressives. The political debates were narrowed between these two camps, and they reflected their different orientations. Whites and the Swazi monarch claimed to be Moderate political leaders, as opposed to Progressive.

2.    The Whites (European Advisory Council – EAC) and King SobhuzaII’s SNC (Swazi National Council) argued that the political economy of the colonial state should not be radically transformed through the adoption of nationalization of private property as it would discourage investors and negatively impact on the economic growth of Swaziland.

3.    Essentially the tension between the EAC and SNC, on the one hand, and the Progressives, on the other hand, was clear.

4.    There were the Progressives, dubbed as radicals, who formed political parties to champion their cause. They were the typical African nationalists of the radical Nkrumah school who clamoured for immediate independence and ‘Africa for Africans’.

5.    King Sobhuza II found support from Carl F. Todd, the leader of the EAC, who was a wealthy South African businessman who had settled in Swaziland. The Swazi monarch and the White community, therefore, constituted the conservative camp, who were disturbed and frightened by the African nationalist ideology of the nascent Swazi political parties.

6.    [Apartheid] South Africa had an eye on two groups in Swaziland as possible bridges to be used to achieve its incorporation dream: the Swazi monarchy and Whites that had taken up residence in Swaziland. Verwoerd’s Bantustan project envisaged Swaziland as part of the unfolding South African political system because of its structured traditional political system with King Sobhuza II at the apex.

7.    Verwoerd enticed Swaziland to enter the Union by promising to increase the powers of the Swazi monarch as a fully sovereign leader.

8.    South Africa had become increasingly distressed by rising nationalism in Swaziland and elsewhere, which it labelled as subversion and which constituted a challenge to the principles of apartheid: universal adult suffrage and black majority rule, which was the platform of the Swazi Progressives, was anathema to the apartheid regime. South Africa was also opposed to pan Africanism of the Nkrumah brand in Swaziland, owing to the numerical inferiority of the White population in Africa and the threat such an ideology posed to the apartheid system.

9.    In a reactionary speech delivered in May 1959, Sobhuza condemned radical nationalists for challenging colonial rule and for adopting alien political methods of contestation. (THESIS)

10. The economic prosperity of Whites was also dependent on exploiting Black labour. The relationship between the Whites and indigenous Swazis during the colonial period was, essentially, one of masters and servants. White investors in Swaziland were worried about nationalist propaganda that pointed to the exploitation of Black labour.

11. King Sobhuza II was against the emergent labour unions in Swaziland, which was part of the expansion of the rights of association in the territory.

12. South Africa did not want to see developments in Swaziland that would contradict the White supremacist philosophy of the apartheid regime – particularly the concept of universal suffrage allowing for one-man-one-vote, or Black majority rule when the Black majority in South Africa were politically neutralized by the apartheid system. Apartheid South Africa was therefore determined to use both the White Swazis and the monarchy as proxies in achieving its goals.

13. A prominent South African Nationalist Party lawyer Van Wyk de Vries assisted King Sobhuza and the EAC to draw up apartheid-like constitutional proposals in anticipation of constitutional reforms. These proposals, which Sobhuza presented in April 1960 in a speech calling for a Legislative Council for Swaziland, were tailored to marginalise and eclipse the radical nationalists operating under the banner of political parties, who were seen as K. Nkrumah’s disciples and as a threat to both the White economic interests and the survival of the Swazi monarchy. The proposals were clearly designed to protect the White minority and to insulate the traditional monarchy, which was favourable to the racist regime, from any dangers. (THESIS)

14. Before the British Colonial Office authorised the commencement of constitutional talks in Swaziland, the conservative monarchy and the reactionary White minority had already crafted constitutional proposals with the technical assistance of apartheid South Africa. (THESIS)

15. The Ngwenyama’s constitutional stance was the handiwork of the apartheid regime and he was, therefore, acting as a proxy. (THESIS)

16. The White settlers and multinational corporations in Swaziland, concerned for the vulnerability of their investments and private property in the event of a leftist take over from the British, found a natural ally in King Sobhuza II, who was out to conserve the traditional status quo and protect private property.

17. According to Sobhuza, Swazis needed the White settlers for the economic development of the territory and, therefore, their properties must be protected and not nationalized.

18. Without identifying the radical Swazi nationalists by name, Sobhuza stated that those who were advocating the nationalization of private property were ‘victims of bad upbringing… they had been brutally and badly brought up and were now acting to their early treatment [sic]’. He stated that Africans must co-exist with White immigrants, because Swaziland was also their country and it was wrong to target the confiscation of their property.

19. Sobhuza submitted that the Africans did not understand what Europeans meant by democracy.

20. Sobhuza’s political ideology on the separation and federation of races smacked of disguised apartheid. His constitutional proposal presented Africans as devoid of the capacity to master Western democracy because he felt it was alien and too complicated for them to comprehend.

21. Sobhuza was against the idea of one-man-one-vote because it could potentially threaten the traditional monarch, as had already happened elsewhere in Africa in the last years of colonial rule and would certainly submerge the White minority in the territory.

22. Sobhuza argued that the policy of ‘one-man-one-vote’ was fatal for Africa because the majority race would swallow the minority and do away with their rights and nationalize their institutions. (THESIS)

23. Sobhuza’s political ideology was disguised apartheid, at it hinged on the separation and federation of races and pointed to the hand of South Africa in the formulation of such a constitutional proposal. (THESIS)

24. In essence, Sobhuza was advocating political hybridity by selecting elements from Swazi culture and tradition that favoured him, and integrating them into a modern political frame while rejecting liberal democracy as presented by the British and advocated by the Progressives, which were a threat to him. 

25. Sobhuza’s political stance expectedly found sympathy with the White minorities and multinational business interests, who were antinationalization.

26. On voting members into the Legislature: The White minority, who were the economic backbone of the territory, would be eclipsed in the event of the introduction of universal suffrage. Given the performance of the educated elite elsewhere in Africa at the polls, with the radical Nkrumah who was swept to power in elections in Ghana in 1950 as a classic example, the Swazi monarchy was not comfortable with the idea of elections organised on the basis of one man one vote. (THESIS)

27. The White community was more comfortable with the question of land and mineral rights being excluded from the jurisdiction of the Legislative Council and left in Sobhuza’s hands, because they could more easily manipulate Sobhuza than a Legislative Council the composition of which they could not trust.

28. The White minority supported King Sobhuza II, although they were not necessarily traditionalists or admirers of African political traditionalism. They preferred to support the Swazi monarch, to have King Sobhuza’s powers intact and undiluted, because they trusted he would defend their economic interests against the rising radical nationalists who were threatening them with nationalization. This SNC–EAC alliance had the backing King Sobhuza enjoyed from White multinational investors and apartheid South Africa.

29. Public opinion gauged from newspaper reports pointed to the fact that the 50–50 political formula that was intended to give the country’s minority Whites an equal voice with the Black majority in the Legislative Council was ridiculous, and would be difficult for Britain to endorse because it was far off the mark of democratic principles. This 50–50 proposal was viewed by a growing number of politically conscious Swazis, Progressives, and White liberals as nothing more than a device to perpetuate the privileges of the White business class, who were essentially South African immigrants. This arrangement allowed Whites to exist as a separate community from Blacks, and this state of affairs hindered racial integration.

30. Indigenous Swazis were overwhelmingly opposed to the draft constitution (50-50 constitutional proposal) contrary to what Sobhuza was purporting and that was clear to the British colonial administration. (THESIS)

31. Carl Todd (Sobhuza’s White ally) warned that the future of the White minority would be in jeopardy if they endorsed the type of constitution the Progressives and White liberals were demanding. Todd indicated that Whites needed to support and strengthen the position of the Ngwenyama…

32. Carl Todd was full of praises for the Ngwenyama when he stated: “Ngwenyama is such a wise friend of the Europeans that we [the EAC] should support and strengthen his position and not undermine it, and it is politically wise to collaborate with the friends we know and trust…

33. ToddconcludedbycallingonthepublictosupporttheSNC–EACconstitutional proposal and to resist being influenced by ‘political agitators’ – a term he used to describe the Progressives. He assured Europeans that the constitution would protect their stakes in the territory.

34. Sobhuza also struggled to campaign for the acceptance of the 50–50 principle among Swazis to no avail. In February 1962, he convened a popular meeting of Swazi men at Lobamba and addressed them on the Committee’s proposals: they overwhelmingly rejected the proposal.

35. The Swazi National Council decided to hold another meeting in April but it broke up in confusion as the Progressives and the monarchists clashed on almost every point, particularly over the issue of equality between Whites and Swazis in the envisaged legislature.

36. The Swazi populace had been generally very critical of Sobhuza’s proposal of a racial federation with the equality of indigenous Swazis and a handful of Whites in the legislature. A free and fair referendum on the SNC/EAC constitutional proposal did not stand a chance of being adopted and Sobhuza could not, therefore, envisage such a political risk. (THESIS)

37. The anti-50–50 sentiments were so pervasive that King Sobhuza started flip-flopping over the issue.

38. Sobhuza convened another meeting at a local inkhundla (meeting place) at Mbabane at which the crowd was hostile to the 50–50 idea even before it had been raised.

39. On 3 July 1962, he called another meeting of all adult Swazis at Lobamba to discuss the constitutional proposal. Swazis turned out in large numbers and this seems to have had an intimidating effect. The King and the SNC addressed the people on several issues, avoiding touching on the constitutional proposal because they were suspicious of the reaction of the crowd, who had come under the sway of the Progressives. The monarch preferred to interrogate the leaders of the Progressives privately, who were summoned to appear before the executive council of the SNC: the liqoqo.

40. King Sobhuza resorted to threats and denounced all those who embraced the ideas of political parties, which he had denounced as ‘unSwazi’. Several similar meetings continued in August without achieving anything, until people soon got tired and stopped attending the meetings. The Swazi population was clearly not in favour of the constitutional proposal, which favoured the White minority outright by giving them representation equal to that of the Swazi majority. The 50–50 issue united the Swazis against their king.

41. Essentially, before the London constitutional talks on Swaziland, there were cracks within the ranks of the SNC group, as some members felt Sobhuza was not prepared to listen to the voice of the Swazis.

42. In London discussions: The EAC delegates (Sobhuza’s ally) expressed their wish to see the incorporation of Swaziland into or, at least, for it to be part of, a federal arrangement with South Africa. They felt that this could be better achieved with the assistance of the Nationalist Party in power. Sobhuza’s SNC supported their ally and calculated that they could successfully stem the rise of radical African nationalism by accepting a Bantustan status within the protective shield of South Africa.

43. Meanwhile, the British government and the Progressives wanted mineral rights to be vested in the Legislative Council and not in the monarch, while the SNC–EAC alliance wanted Sobhuza to be in control.

44. The radical political leaders countered the constitutional stance of the SNC–EAC and were either fired or forced to resign from the Constitutional Committee.

45. In essence, Sobhuza, with the support of the Whites, wanted to enter modern politics with the traditional structures of the Swazi kingdom intact under Sobhuza II and with separate privileges for Whites. This political stance smacked of historical anachronism and disguised apartheid. White interest groups and apartheid South Africa persuaded King Sobhuza to form a political party because they preferred him to the Progressive political leaders, and because staying out of modern politics would result in the monarch being eclipsed.

46. Prominent South African Afrikaner politicians such as the Broderbond member Van Wyk de Vries and MP, and later Prime Minister, B. J. Vorster also advised King Sobhuza to form a political party to contest the June 1964 elections, in order to remain relevant in Swazi politics.

47. South Africa provided King Sobhuza with financial and organizational resources for the formation of his own political party to challenge the radical nationalists.

MAXWELL DLAMINI WAS MY PRE-SCHOOL TEACHER… IN FACT, HE BREASTFED ME!

A response to a retired “comrade”

I have been wrong. I have not given myself enough time and space to acknowledge the role played by some people in my life, especially during my darkest hours. Many people do not know that Maxwell Dlamini, despite him being younger than me, was my pre-school teacher. He literally taught me how to read and write, and I have him to thank for teaching me all about the nine planets, from Mercury to Pluto. By the time I got to university, he was there to welcome me and teach me all about the ins and outs of the University of Swaziland (UNISWA) – as it was called then. In fact, though he was enrolled on a Bachelor or Commerce degree at the University of Swaziland, he wrote all my Law exam papers and assignments – despite zero knowledge of the law programme! I have so much to thank him for.

When my mother was in labour, Maxwell, believe it or not, was there to help her deliver me without any complications! I came first in my potty-training class all because I had a mentor; Maxwell himself! Is this not amazing?

Is the above narration too good to be true? Is it ridiculous? Is it unbelievable? If it is unbelievable, why is it that some people believed the ramblings that Maxwell published on Saturday 14 July 2018 on Facebook as well as a PDF version he was pushing through WhatsApp? He deleted the Facebook post a few hours after publication, mainly because many people could easily see through his fictitious stories presented as facts, and also because some of the people who know the facts were able to easily point out the lies.

I am not in the business of writing people out of history. As such, in order to counter the attempt to write many people out of history, particularly on issues where I feature, I am forced to respond to Maxwell’s article titled “STOP IT PIUS VILAKATI”. My conscience does not allow me to sit silently as the practical solidarity I received over the years from many individuals and groups is deliberately concealed and in some instances distorted. Therefore, this article has nothing to do with clearing my name, but has everything to do with clarifying the course of history and, most importantly, publicly acknowledging the people who gave me solidarity during my darkest hours, the people whom Maxwell is attempting to erase from history, either by spreading blatant lies or by distortion.

Dear Maxwell, sir, lie if you must, definitely go on and lie if your life depends on your lies, but surely there is a limit!

I had to allow Maxwell’s article to enjoy the bright shining sun for some time without any response from me, however, mainly because of my wish for people to thoroughly read his article and make their independent conclusions about it (and about me) before they could consider any response from me.

Below I lead each issue with a quote from his original article so that the discussion is easy to follow, but also for the benefit of those who may have not seen his embarrassing article.

1.    “I have further been elected Secretary General of SWAYOCO”

After colourfully painting his “revolutionary journey”, Maxwell concludes it by telling us that he was elected Secretary General of the Swaziland Youth Congress (SWAYOCO), the youth wing of PUDEMO (People’s United Democratic Movement). After doing all this painting, he probably forgot the following historical facts:

(a)  That he was elected in the year 2012;

(b)  That the term for the post to which he had been elected officially expired two years later in 2014;

(c)  That, constitutionally, he and his NEC should have vacated office in the year 2014;

(d)  That they continued to hold onto power and never convened a national congress so that a new leadership could be elected;

(e)  That despite calls by SWAYOCO membership for him and the rest of his colleagues to convene a congress, they refused to do so, and SWAYOCO disintegrated due to this refusal and a generally inactive SWAYOCO;

(f)   That six years since he was elected Secretary General, at the time of his anti-Pius rant, SWAYOCO had not convened a national congress; and

(g)  That the future of SWAYOCO remained uncertain because of such refusal and/or failure to convene congress.

2.    “I have known Pius Rinto Vilakati since 2007 during the semesterization struggle. He was a Hip Hop and used to wear torn denim jeans with an afro as well”

Somehow Maxwell believes that my activism began when that semesterisation saga began in 2007. It would therefore displease him to know that already in 2006 some of my classmates and I were among other leading students in the fight against the Ministry of Education’s “high priority - low priority” policy, a precursor to the Scholarship Policy which we fought against in 2010. As students who were new to the LLB Degree programme, having transferred from the Diploma in Law programme on the same academic year in 2006, we fell on the “low priority” category and were not eligible for scholarship, according to the government. We fought against the ministry and won! Surely this displeases Maxwell, for he was not there to “guide me”, as he claims later on in his article. Oh, where were you Lord Maxwell to show me the way?!

Linked to the above is the fact that it was during those 2006 struggles against the government that I met Wandile Dludlu, who was Kwaluseni campus chairperson at that time. It was Wandile’s uncompromising spirit at that time that inspired us to fight on for our right to education. Wandile went on to make it clear that the students’ class boycott and protest would not stop until each and every student had received scholarship. He is also famous for calling for the Minister of Education, Constance Simelane, to resign. This definitely inspired students. This is exactly what students needed; an uncompromising mood and utmost bias towards students’ interests! Maxwell would have admonished Wandile if he had been there, and would have called him an extremist and anarchist, the words he later places upon my head for similar actions.

It was also at this time that other student activists like Musa Ngubeni came to the front – or were born – and would henceforth live a life of political activism along with their studies. Maxwell has decided to shut them out and forget about these activists. Maxwell was not even there by then, yet, somehow, he is the creator of Pius and his activism!

Pius “was a Hip Hop”? Perhaps Maxwell meant to say I was a hip hop artist or rapper, not a hip hop, the music genre. Nonetheless, all that aside, he is not the first “comrade” to ever publicly mention that I was a rapper with the belief that it is an insult to me. It is not. In fact, if he cares to know, I am still a rapper. My music is also available online for free downloading. He should just download the music and enjoy himself freely!

I actually miss my life of torn jeans (well, I called them patched jeans, but of course they would often look torn). They were custom designed and made for me by Chenx, a genius fashion designer in Swaziland. I still have a jacket he made for me around 2008 or 2009. If it interests Maxwell, or any of his groupies, I have always put faith in local designers and innovators. This is why, instead of buying Levi’s and Guess jeans, I invested in local art. This is the future I wish for a democratic Swaziland. But I do not understand how this point was relevant for Maxwell to include it. It is just jeans goddamn it!

I had an afro? The man clearly does not know me. By the time he knew me I had no such. A small point this is, but I must make to clear up distortions.

3.    “I took him in to my house and stayed with him for the duration of the year”

I have always been poor, that I must confess. So many times, I relied on the solidarity of other people to survive. But this need for solidarity was at its highest from 2009 to 2010. This was the most stressful era of my university life. I just did not know that many years later someone would dance on my misfortunes and attempt to use them to make petty political gains.

Nonetheless, despite the high emotions that characterise this period, we must place the truth on the table. Before I even knew that Maxwell was renting a one rom flat just outside university campus, I received practical solidarity from some of my former classmates. It is these people who took me in, gave me food and water for a greater part of 2009. Of course, I also got assistance from my family.

But Maxwell will not tell this to the people. He wants the world to focus on the contribution he made and forget about that of the rest. He then wishes the world to believe that it was him, and only him, who housed me when in fact I took refuge in many other friends’ rented rooms. Additionally, I only started squatting in Maxwell’s room in very late in 2009. Well, I do not really know whether it was only Maxwell who paid rent, because he had a roommate, another student activist.

Maxwell somehow forgets even to acknowledge his roommate for also allowing me to sometimes spend the night in their room. For Maxwell, his roommate does not exist. He simply beats his chest and proclaims, “I took him in to my house and stayed with him for the duration of the year”. Such narcissism!

Maxwell also neglects to mention the other people who brought us food whilst I stayed in their room, easing the financial burden we were all in. Not Maxwell! He did everything! Omnipotent Maxwell!

4.    “He and some group of students organised themselves into a group called “CHOIR” and at some time wanted to stage a coup by dethroning the elected SRC leadership as led by Mancoba Mabuza and some of us were quick to rise up and defend the properly elected SRC of that time.”

Maxwell is now distancing himself from the “Choir”. This is interesting, and certainly good for history to record it from the man’s own writing. Let history never forget this confession.

Nonetheless, in this statement, Maxwell refers to the year 2007 during the semesterisation saga, the longest class boycott UNISWA had ever seen since the early 1990s. The “Choir” he is referring to was a group of students (a group of few students – about ten), of which I am still proud to have been a member, who stood firm in their conviction against the UNISWA administration’s imposition of a new system. We were among the most vocal students that year and due to this we found ourselves discussing a lot among ourselves – some argue that we were the unelected leadership, partly because when the SRC members started to shiver and vacillate, we took charge of the situation and even convened informal student body meetings which always got support from the majority of students. It was therefore a spontaneously formed group.

But with time we became a distinct and highly influential group. So powerful we were that at some point we were even more influential than even the SRC. In so many instances the SRC had to consult with us when a meeting had to be held and what was to be discussed. Indeed, we wielded so much power.  

But let it be known that, contrary to Maxwell’s claims, we were not really exclusively the Choir. All students were the Choir, even Mancoba Mabusa who was campus chairperson at that time. Maxwell must come to us so that we school him ton how this name “Choir” came about. He will also be taught how the phrase “Choir nawe” (literally meaning, “You are also a part of the Choir”) emerged. All the students of that time were members of the “Choir”. It is for this reason that I would, in all student body meetings, begin my address by proclaiming “Choir” over and over again, and the students would reciprocate the slogan. It is also for this reason that, from that era, students started greeting each other by saying “Choir yam” (My Choir). Sadly, Maxwell was not part of this wonderful movement! He has already confessed!

Nonetheless, we must separate fact from fiction. Indeed the tiny group which Maxwell refers to as the “Choir” was a very radical group. That is the truth. Guilty as charged! We never compromised on principles. Hence when we realised that most of the SRC members were now literally working against the students’ cause, we were clear that they no longer represented students’ interests. There was no way they could claim to represent us when they were practically working to sabotage students’ resolutions taken at the Multi-Purpose Hall. And we could not merely sit by and pretend that this was not happening.

Whilst Maxwell claims we wanted to remove the SRC, it must be clarified that actually Mancoba Mabuza was among the tiny minority of SRC members who always abided by students’ resolutions. This is why, in the meeting in which the SRC was lambasted by students, Mancoba was among the few who were praised for standing by the interests of students – along with Mbuso and Percy. Maxwell has forgotten this fact. He even forgets that he never stood up to “defend” the SRC! But more on this below.

Unfortunately, that meeting, like many others during this period, was illegal in terms of UNISWA regulations (In fact, if we had limited ourselves to legal meetings, like Maxwell is advising the oppressed people of Swaziland to do, we would never have recorded even a single victory during the course of that struggle.) As such, our vote of no confidence on the SRC could only be symbolical. It worked to send a strong message to the SRC that they had to choose whether they were with the students or on the university administration’s side. And they lived another day.

At some point during the academic year, however, we (the “Choir” – that is, the nucleus) did not agree with Mancoba. He seemed to suggest that the class boycott must end, whilst we wanted to continue marching strong. We were also of the strong view that he was imposing his own decisions on the rest of the students, the exact reason we were fighting against the university administration! Tempers flared at the MPH (multi-purpose hall) as we, for the first time since the action started, publicly differed with Mancoba. But this state of affairs was not a healthy one, partly because some of us within that “Choir” were already members of PUDEMO, though Maxwell did not know this fact.

Maxwell must take the phone and call Wandile Dluldlu and Mancoba Mabuza so that they can tell him how the disagreements between us (that is, I and the other two comrades I will not mention here – though Maxwell knows them), on the one hand, and Mancoba, on the other, were managed so that we could reach a common ground and set aside our differences – since we were all members of PUDEMO. At that time, the three of us (“Choir” members) were not even in the SRC. Maxwell must then ask himself how it was possible for Wandile to engage the three of us together with Mancoba if we (the three) were not already members of PUDEMO, as he claims in one section of his article.

Maxwell then goes on to claim that he was among some of the students who “were quick to rise up and defend the properly elected SRC of that time.” Oh what a liar! That “vote of no confidence” was not opposed! I remember that I eve kicked away all the chairs that had been lined for the SRC and declared that we no longer have the SRC. The members of the SRC were not even there when we did all this! And Maxwell never even lifted a finger in defence of the SRC.

Like I pointed out above, the fact of the matter is that Mancoba was never voted out of his position. In fact it was made clear that when we elect a new SRC he would retain his position. But then Maxwell will not be outdone. He has had no choice but to show his creative juices by recreating history and distorting it in the process!

5.    “I campaigned for him to be President of the SRC”

I was elected SRC President in 2009. Maxwell has somehow forgotten that in 2008 I was elected SRC Kwaluseni campus secretary where Musa Ngubeni was the chairperson. He will not mention this, of course, because he never contributed anything to my campaign. He will not mention it, of course, because our campaign during that year prepared us for the next year’s campaign when I was going for the presidency – and as such, Maxwell got learned from us on how to run a campaign.

It would have been better for Maxwell to state the truth that he was part of other comrades who campaigned for me and the other members of my team during SRC elections in 2009. He must drop the “I” and remember that he was with a team. Even in this instance he did not play a major role! Our experience during the previous academic year’s gruesome election campaign had taught us a lot. Indeed we could not have won the elections without the contribution of many other friends and comrades, Maxwell included.

6.    “I was the chairperson of the underground structure of the movement…”

Oh! If ever Maxwell were a chairperson of some underground structure, then it means I was not part of that structure. The nature of our respective recruitment into PUDEMO, in fact, prohibited such a “unified” underground structure. It simply could never have happened that he and I could be in the same underground structure of the Movement. This only exists in Maxwell’s brain, not in reality. In any event, who in their right state of mind ever reveals underground structures to the public? Only those who are extremely desperate to expose critical information to the oppressive regime!

Underground structures of the movement are never, and should never, be publicly mentioned, especially now during the intensification of the struggle against the tinkhundla regime. The names of members of such underground structures should not even be mentioned. This is one of the basic rules Maxwell has violated in his article. He has put the lives of any suspected members of structures at risk and has also alerted the regime that there possibly exists at the university some underground structures of a banned movement. His narcissism risks the life of the entire movement!

7.    “I was responsible for inducting him into the SNUS as well as to tell him about the good news of PUDEMO and SWAYOCO”

Before there was Maxwell Dlamini, there already was a SNUS branch at the Kwaluseni campus. Leading members in 2007 included Sonkhe Dube (now SWAYOCO president), among others. But before these comrades, there was Wandile Dludlu. Already I knew about SNUS through Cde Wandile, before there was ever a Maxwell Dlamini who thought he was a super revolutionary by wearing a Mario Masuku T-shirt!

8.    “I used to write speeches for him while still President of the SRC… I introduced him to SNUS as SRC president and into the work of the organisation”

If anyone has ever seen Maxwell’s writings and compared them with mine, they would know that there is just no way I ever could rely on Maxwell for my speeches. In any event, throughout my SRC days, I never ever relied on written speeches to address students. Lies sometimes forget to dress themselves properly! Look at this now!

9.    “[Pius] left the country before he can formally join PUDEMO and participate in the activities of the organisation”

These lies have already been dealt with above. PUDEMO leadership would never have directed me to exit Swaziland if I was not a member, in any event.

10. “When he was suspended, I took his own fight to the SRC and administration and engaged Lawyer Thulani Maseko to take his matter to court. He was finally reinstated into the university to write his exams.”

There was a time in 2010 when the university administration barred me from the university after a long disciplinary case against me. Maxwell, yet again, wants to be the starring. No one, except him, ever played a role in my life. Let us correct this revision of history.

When the summons were delivered to me by the university lawyer (Sabela Dlamini, if I recall correctly), whom I met at the shop next to the university, the first person I saw was Velaphi Mamba, already a former university student by that time. He is the one who helped me first reach lawyer Leo Gama (the late), who was too busy at that time. Again, he is the one who helped me connect with lawyer Thulani Maseko. But Maxwell throws himself into the fray with lies! Of course, Maxwell was among the few who accompanied me to court on the following days until the interdict against me was confirmed.

11. “He had indeed elements of opportunism, anarchism, lack of patience and tendencies of undermining duly elected leadership.”

As evidence of these “elements”, Maxwell claims that during Sipho Jele’s funeral, I “forcefully went to speak on behalf of SNUS even though the leadership of SNUS as led by Bheki Khumalo and Thabo Dlamini was present and ready to speak on behalf of the organisation.” He forgets that when I went to the podium to speak I was actually sitting next to him. We discussed together who would speak between him and me. In fact, student representatives should have spoken before SWAYOCO, but they did not because none was ready.

Maxwell should also tell the leadership of SNUS at that time that he, as SNUS national organiser that year, contemplated speaking on behalf of SNUS – as he had done in many other forums – despite the presence of the SNUS Secretary General at the memorial service. But then this is Maxwell, the master of distortions!

But I have no regrets for taking the podium that day; at the memorial service in Manzini and at the night vigil in Ncabaneni. By that time, I had become sick and tired of the SNUS leadership, which was constantly unavailable for activism work, I had already made by unhappiness clear to a lot of comrades and had made my intentions known that if that vacuum continued, I would take over! That I was clear about through and through. I was also unhappy with the lack of activist language from SNUS leaders. The language was often very lukewarm, conciliatory and lacking any agitative feel. My informal “take-over” is thus not regretted at all. Where there is a vacuum, nature will find ways of closing it. There was a vacuum, and I am happy to have been at the opportune moments to close it and avoid an embarrassment for the student movement. Glory to the revolution!

12.  “[Pius] declared himself Commander in Chief of Umbane””

I have been made to believe that there are videos that were taken during that memorial service. I am one hundred percent sure that nowhere in my speech did I ever proclaim or even suggest that I was the Commander in Chief of Umbane or any other military wing. But I will confess that indeed I did proclaim “Shisa Mbane, shisa!” repeatedly! Of that I am absolutely guilty! And I was the only one to proclaim and uphold all the organisations that had been expressly listed as terrorist entities under the Suppression of Terrorism Act of 2008. None of the leaders that day did that! And, Maxwell’s colleagues at SNUS, I dare say, would never have pronounced all those proscribed organisations (PUDEMO, SWAYOCO, SSN, Umbane). He also would never have done that if he had taken the podium!

13.  “[Pius] threatened to burn police houses, police stations and the country for murdering comrade Sipho Jele.”

Maxwell is now praising me too much! I cannot carry this glory! I am not worthy! Although I must agree that I indeed called for the attack of the police in retaliation for the murder of Comrade Sipho Jele, he is taking it too far. Somehow, Maxwell forgets what everyone who was there remembers; that I referred to Mswati as “Herod”. None of the speakers in that memorial service ever touched Mswati’s dignity. But I was not scared to drag him all over the place! Maxwell somehow forgets this fact.

And, why is Maxwell even raising the issue that I issued threats to the police? Dear Maxwell, are you feeling sorry for the police? Do you wish to see them protected from the “wrath” of Pius? What a shame! I hope they give you a warm hug for upholding their “law and order” principle!

But before the memorial even started, Maxwell forgets something crucial. He has ignored the contribution of Comrade Mpumi Magagula who placed notices, which I had drafted, all over the Kwaluseni campus of the university. The notices were about the memorial service. He ignores the act of that brave young woman! He wants to write her out of history. What a shame! I, however, cannot simply ignore her brave acts. I cannot ignore the fact that she placed her own life and education at risk for posting all those “terrorist” notices.

14.  “In fact we helped him to escape knowing that he was asthmatic and would not survive police interrogation and torture.”

Maxwell finds himself compelled to state that I was asthmatic. He has to do this in order to “prove” that I was weak. What a gross shame. But he is not the first one to pull out the “asthma card” in an attempt to drag me on the tarmac. A few other comrades have done this in the past. He has learned from them very well.

In any event, why would I not survive the interrogation and torture [because of the asthma]? Maxwell deliberately forgets our abduction by the police on 10 February 2010. He was among the four of us who were abducted that day in Manzini City. I survived that dat. When the police singled me out and took me from Manzini to Bhunya police station for the whole day, I survived all that – yes, fully packed with a very bad case of asthma.

Amazingly, Maxwell has since abandoned the revolution notwithstanding that he does not have asthma, and I am still on the course – still majestically carrying my asthma pump through it all. Additionally, he does not want to mention that Comrade Musa Ngubeni stood outside the Manzini Police Regional Headquarters almost the whole day, waiting to see if I am released by the police that evening.

And he continues with the annoying part of him even here. He forgets the heroism of the other two comrades, one of whom was his own roommate (Thembela) and Sipho, who were also abducted by the royal police and then dumped many kilometres away from the city. No, Maxwell will not mention their bravery, lest they take the struggle limelight away from him. He feels best when he is the lone starring – and the rest of the “victims” waiting on the other side for his messiahship!

Yes, Maxwell was there to assist when I escaped from Swaziland on Sunday 16 May 2010. I would not have revealed this to the public, and in the process expose him, but then he has already done that all by himself in an effort to upgrade his struggle credential with lies. The narcissistic thing he does, as predicted, is that he forgets that he was in fact more of an errand boy at that time. He was directed by another senior comrade. He also forgets the important roles played by his 2011 cellmate Comrade Musa Ngubeni. Vintage Maxwell! He will hoist himself up in the air and start singing his own praises and pretend he has forgotten the roles played by other people. I will not even ask how it is that he was acquitted by the court yet Ngubeni was convicted for the same crime on the same evidence. I will not touch that.

But let me concede one thing about the interrogation and torture that Maxwell claims I was not going to survive. I should not act like a war hero here, and neither should I act like a terminator. Throughout my activism in Swaziland, I never wanted to be tortured. Definitely I am scared of torture. If torture ever finds me anywhere, I will endure it as and when it comes, though I am hoping that when it comes, I will have prepared myself well enough to withstand it. Therefore, I must be clear that I try as best as possible to avoid capture and torture, though I have never compromised my principles merely because I want to avoid torture. I have never compromised my views, any time, anywhere. This is what angers Maxwell to the point of presenting me as an extremist – he respects tinkhundla leaders very much, unlike we “extremists”!

He adds more lies, claiming, “I was instrumental in masterminding his own escape when police were all over that place wanting to arrest him…” He also claims, “in fact it was me that told him to carry the coffin of the late comrade and stay with it in the hearse as a way to stop police from arresting him in that church.” There! “I”, “it was me”, “I was instrumental”! It was Maxwell, working with Maxwell, in a Maxwell place, doing Maxwell things! And what was the brand name of the hearse? I bet it was a Maxwell brand! Oh, by the way, the coffin was also designed and manufactured by Maxwell! Oh hail, Maxwell!!!

When lies kill!

Anyway, I was pushed straight into carrying the coffin by Mphandlana Shongwe, and later into the hearse. It was not Maxwell. After I had delivered the speech at the podium, Mphandlana made me sit on the front and not go back to the rest of the people because he feared I would be an easy target for the police who had blockaded the church entry-exit door.

15. “During the night vigil, after getting tip off that over 500 police officers were coming to arrest him for his utterances in the memorial service”

This is Maxwell! He writes my speeches, houses me, feeds me, campaigns for me, gets a tip off from the police that they want to arrest me, and many other heroic acts! He does all this on his own! Remember, he goes down to lift with both hands the imaginary trophy he has earned, hoists it up in the air, and enjoys the universal imaginary applause from his imaginary audience!

Do you know why, according to Maxwell, the police wanted to arrest me? Yes, “for his utterances”! Utterances! The tinkhundla regime is definitely proud of you, Maxwell! Utterances?! Just utterance?!Really?!

And, why is Maxwell not telling his audience that at the night vigil I again resolutely raised the same issues I had raised at the memorial service in Manzini? Is he ashamed? He reduces my address to merely “utterances”! Why would “over 500 police officers” be mobilise to go and fetch one man for mere utterances at a memorial service”? I ask the readers to think critically on this point.

Maxwell even remembers that I was with my “then girlfriend”, and in the process attempts to slander her. He speaks about her like she was nothing but a mere body to keep me on her “laps and arms”, as he claims. Yes, the same woman he lied to again and again after I had left for exile. The same woman he was insulting when I was in exile, when she had no one to defend her. The same woman who stood by me throughout my ordeals, including the time when Maxwell joined his boss-comrades in a vicious fight to try and discredit me (without success). Yes, the same woman who stood by me and made a sterling contribution to my life in exile when Maxwell and his boss-comrades were failing to help me even with the most basic of things. Maxwell has forgotten that this woman whom she reduces to mere “laps and arms” was a SNUS member, who would later be part of the SNUS Kwaluseni Branch Executive Committee. That is the Maxwell I know! He thinks that by denigrating others he will shine. No, Maxwell, you will forever remain the cow dung that you are!

16.  “[I] organise[d] a car for him to take him to a safe house for the duration of the night. After confirming the threat as real, I went to pick him up from the safe house and took him into exile.”

Alright, may the independent readers please take some time to analyse and decide for themselves whether it is possible for one person to do all these things all on his own! Maxwell even adds, “In fact, I am the last person to see him out of Swaziland.” He is serious about this! Whilst he remained brave, Pius, he adds, “was shaken, afraid, shaking and couldn’t even speak on that day.” Let us take this to a comedy show, it would definitely make a killing at the box office! A definite Oscar Award candidate!

But there is another thing which Maxwell does consistently. He always wants to be the centre of every activity. He can only claim he took me to a safe house (he was not even there when I reached that house), but he will not mention that I actually took refuge at the Roman Catholic Bishop’s house in Manzini. He will not mention the solidarity role that the late Bishop Ncamiso Ndlovu provided to me, and indeed to PUDEMO, that early morning. In Maxwell’s world, it was all him, and he took me to some “safe house” which he will not mention – because, of course, there was no such safe house! Alright, let us argue that the Bishop’s house was the “safe house”. Kudos to you, Maxwell!

17.  “I had to face his parents, family and girlfriend to break the news of his sudden departure from Swaziland”

There goes another lie! Maxwell never went to my family! He never met even a single member of my family! I asked him many times to do this, but he failed (or refused). It was that “then girlfriend” who was brave enough to go and face my family and also got many of my clothes and smuggle out some of my crucial documents. If it were not for her sacrifices, I would not have been able to further my studies in exile.

18.  “I have gone even an extra mile for him, to defend and protect him”

Oh, here we go again! The ultimate narcissist! Some have done far more miles and they are humble enough to not go around screaming about the many extra miles they took for me and other comrades!

In lieu of a conclusion

After Maxwell spewed all his bile, he went on to make his opinions on the correctness of a decision of the interregional forum which decided that PUDEMO’s national executive committee had failed, without just cause, to hold any national general council and also, without just cause, postponed the national congress and thus that the NEC naturally had to step aside as per the constitution. I may engage his opinions on these issues at some other stage. In this article I mainly wanted to correct history and also to state clearly the roles played by many people in my life and in the struggle, whom Maxwell had deceitfully written out of history.

It is perhaps good that I allowed Maxwell’s article to go through the full mile and more, for history has already started exposing his true position in the struggle. The man has, countless times, already come out publicly to call for the revolutionaries of Swaziland to participate in the backward tinkhundla system’s elections. Additionally, he recently tried to mobilise the democratic forces to join him in attending Mswati’s cultural gimmick, Incwala!  All this without a shame! The man is actively working hard to ensure that Mswati is always cast in good light. 

Maxwell doing the bidding for tinkhundla!

Having considered Maxwell’s strong “activism” to protect the regime, especially how highly agitative he has been on deflecting any attention away from the monarchy since his acquittal (while his co-accused continued prison life), and thus largely demobilise and pacify the people, one then wonders about his stay in prison. What were the conditions there in prison? How did he survive? Did he ever have anything to sell in order to survive? Did he ever have to do any favours to anyone (warders, fellow inmates, or anyone) in order to survive? Perhaps we will never know the answers to these questions. Perhaps other prisoners at the time would have better information.

Maxwell’s narcissism and selfishness is so deep that he failed to even acknowledge the hard work done by many comrades who campaigned for his release along with the other comrades. When he came out was to claim that he was the face of all political prisoners, around whom all campaigns had to be centred! If the reader does not see that in Maxwell we are dealing with an individualistic person, a selfish fellow, then they will continue to be misled by Maxwell’s revolutionary phrase-mongering and lies.

Lastly, unlike Maxwell who commands me to “STOP IT”, I am encouraging him to continue raising issues, to debate with me, to differ with me if he so wishes. I say, “KEEP GOING MAXWELL!”