MBABANE – The Judiciary of Eswatini has rejected claims made at the validation of the Draft National Anti-Corruption Policy held at Sibane Hotel on 29 October 2025, which suggested that the courts are responsible for the perceived failure to combat corruption in the country.
In an official press statement, the Judiciary described the submissions as scandalous, reckless, and politically motivated. The statement noted that courts are not tasked with investigating or gathering evidence of offences; this responsibility lies with investigative agencies such as the police and the Anti-Corruption Unit. These agencies submit evidence to the Director of Public Prosecutions for possible prosecution.
The Judiciary stressed that courts operate effectively and efficiently under the Constitution and the law. Their mandate is to uphold the Constitution and determine, in each case, whether sufficient evidence exists for the commission of an offence. For corruption cases, courts assess the existence of prima facie evidence, while common law cases require proof beyond reasonable doubt. Where evidence is insufficient, the courts cannot hold a suspect accountable.
Addressing allegations that the courts are run by a single individual, the Judiciary clarified that all judgments are written with detailed reasons. Individuals or institutions dissatisfied with a judgment may appeal up to the Supreme Court. Judicial officers are sworn to administer justice in every case brought before them and must operate independently of government policies or political influence. The statement warned against politicising cases, noting that constructive criticism is welcomed, but the courts cannot compromise due process.
The Judiciary further called on the government to stop the blame game and instead allocate sufficient resources to investigative and prosecution agencies. This includes investment in personnel, capacity-building, training, and financial resources to ensure these bodies can operate independently, as required by the Constitution and relevant laws.
Discussion about this post