Mbabane: A submission by the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) to the United Nations Human Rights Council has raised alarm over what it describes as a deepening human rights crisis in Eswatini.
The report, prepared for the upcoming Universal Periodic Review (UPR), states that conditions for human rights defenders have deteriorated to a point of crisis, despite the country previously accepting recommendations to address these concerns.
The ICJ, a global organisation composed of 60 jurists and lawyers, said Eswatini has made little progress in implementing recommendations from previous UPR cycles. Instead, it noted an intensified use of repressive laws and practices that have created a chilling effect on dissent and civic space.
Central to the ICJ’s findings are concerns about the independence of the judiciary. While the Constitution of Eswatini guarantees access to an independent and impartial court and explicitly states that the judiciary is not subject to the control of any person or authority, the ICJ said these safeguards have not translated into practice.
The report highlighted what it described as significant deficiencies in judicial independence over the past two decades, noting that public confidence in the judiciary remains low.
Particular attention was drawn to the role of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), whose powers to appoint, discipline and remove judicial officers are said to be limited by the influence of the monarchy. According to the ICJ, this has created a perception that the JSC “strongly favours Royalty,” thereby compromising its independence and, by extension, that of the judiciary.
The ICJ further stated that the Law Society’s input is often not sought during JSC processes, contrary to legal requirements. It added that judicial appointments have frequently been made in ways that do not align with constitutional provisions, and that the Commission has failed to act impartially in disciplinary matters.
The report also pointed to a lack of transparency in judicial appointments, noting that the JSC has not developed or published detailed guidelines outlining the process, despite having the authority to do so.
Lawyers interviewed during the ICJ’s research expressed concerns about the appointment of individuals with close ties to the royal family as judges. While acknowledging that some judges perform their duties independently, the report indicated that such individuals are widely perceived to be in the minority.
The ICJ raised additional concerns regarding the use of acting judges, alleging that the Chief Justice has repeatedly renewed temporary judicial appointments in a manner that creates dependency.
According to the report, such judges rely on frequent renewals of their tenure and therefore lack accountability beyond the Chief Justice. This has led to what the Law Society describes as a situation where some judges effectively operate as “permanent Acting Judges.”
The report further alleged that these appointments may be used to establish patronage within the legal profession and influence judicial outcomes.
Issues surrounding case allocation were also highlighted. The ICJ stated that the assignment of cases is controlled solely by the Chief Justice through a process that lacks transparency. This, it said, has resulted in certain judges consistently handling politically sensitive cases, while others are excluded.
Lawyers cited in the report claimed that cases involving terrorism charges and constitutional challenges to key legislation are frequently assigned to a small group of judges perceived to be sympathetic to the government and the monarchy. These judges have reportedly been informally referred to as the “Terrorism Division,” despite no such official structure existing.
The ICJ submission detailed what it described as increasing pressure on lawyers, particularly those representing clients in politically sensitive matters.
Lawyers reportedly face threats to their safety, harassment, intimidation, and economic retaliation. Female lawyers have allegedly been subjected to threats of sexual violence, while others have been improperly associated with their clients’ alleged conduct.
Discussion about this post