Mbabane– Parliament has been urged to remove executive controls from the proposed Human Rights Commission law and give the country’s constitutional watchdog the independence, funding and powers needed to hold Government institutions accountable.
The call has been made by the Southern Africa Litigation Centre (SALC), which, together with Lilungelo Lakho partners, has analysed the Commission on Human Rights and Public Administration Bill, 2025 (Bill No. 22 of 2025), currently before Parliament.
SALC says the Bill contains strong provisions, including powers to subpoena witnesses and documents, investigate complaints, review legislation and conduct unannounced visits to prisons, police cells and other places of detention. Parliament formally tabled the Bill in March 2026.
However, the organisation says several provisions could undermine the independence of the Commission, which already exists as a constitutional institution under Section 163 of the Constitution.
One of its main concerns is Section 31, which requires the Commission’s annual and other reports to be submitted to the Minister before being tabled in Parliament.
SALC wants the Commission to report directly and simultaneously to the Speaker of the House of Assembly and the President of the Senate, with reports published and tabled within 14 days.
It argues that a body expected to investigate human rights violations and maladministration by Government should not have its reporting channel controlled by a member of the Executive.
The organisation has also raised concerns about Section 26, arguing that the Bill’s proposed appropriation mainly covers salaries and recurrent administrative expenses while leaving investigations, detention visits, public education, regional offices and capital expenditure inadequately provided for.
SALC says the Commission risks being funded “to exist, not to function”.
Another concern is Section 32, which requires the Commission to seek the Attorney-General’s approval before instructing an external lawyer. SALC argues that this could create a conflict where the Commission is investigating or litigating against Government.
The organisation is also calling for changes to Section 19, warning that the Bill could leave some migrant workers, asylum seekers and immigration detainees outside the categories of persons able to lodge complaints with the Commission.
It wants jurisdiction to depend on the alleged conduct and whether it occurred within Eswatini’s jurisdiction or effective control, rather than the complainant’s immigration status.
SALC has further called for a more transparent appointment process for commissioners, including public advertisements, published selection criteria, shortlisting and interviews.
The proposed framework is being measured against the UN Paris Principles, which set standards for the independence, mandate, funding and functioning of national human rights institutions. SALC says Eswatini’s Commission has never been accredited by the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI).
The Commission itself is mandated to investigate alleged violations of fundamental rights and freedoms, as well as complaints involving injustice, corruption, abuse of power and unfair treatment by public officers.
SALC’s position is that Parliament should preserve the Bill’s stronger investigative provisions while removing executive levers that could restrict the Commission’s ability to exercise them independently.
The organisation has therefore urged Parliament to strengthen the Bill before it is passed into law.
Discussion about this post