Union whose formation has shaken the establishment. Young and progressive police officers, much against expectations from senior police and the traditionalist camp, have exploited a constitutional clause to establish the police union. They have openly challenged their seniors who have relied on an age-old Police Act to try and stop the union. But a recent ruling by the High Court that the Police Act was inconsistent with the constitution has strengthened the resolve of the young officers to push their agenda forward. Evidently, because of the interesting nature of the developments, journalists were likely to seize the opportunity to hear the views of the King on the issue. But Dlamini, regarding the matter as too sensitive for the King to address, warned journalists against asking the King anything relating to the police union. Failure to oblige would result in their removal from the press conference, he warned. Whilst this shocked the journalists, they grudgingly obliged. On February 26, the Times of Swaziland ran an editorial challenging the continued censorship, intimidation, and harassment of the media. The newspaper argued that the King was old enough to decide on his own whether or not to answer a journalist’s question and did not need anyone in his court to defend or decide what is good or bad for him. • ALERT Date: January 26, 2007 Persons: Media in Swaziland Violation: Legislation (threatening legislation) The Swazi Parliament has increased fines on journalists and media houses broadcasting or publishing articles deemed to be critical or offending against Parliament or MPs. The fines, viewed to be quite substantial and a sign of heavy-handedness by Parliament on the media, have been increased from E1 000 (approx. US $143) to E4 000 (approx US $570). The new fines are contained in the revised parliament Standing Orders for 2007 which were recently published in a legal notice. The Standing Orders make it mandatory for journalists to be fined sums not exceeding E4 000 for offending Parliament or MPs. Section 195 of the Standing Orders in the legal notice dated January 26, 2007, permit any MP who has a query against a newspaper or any media house to produce a copy in which the article was published and to be also prepared to give the name of the printer or publisher and, also submit a substantive motion declaring the person in question to have been guilty of contempt of Parliament. The Section states further: “The fines leviable under any Act providing for the privileges of Parliament, for any offence mentioned in that Act as well as for each offence set forth in any Standing Order of any resolution of the House, shall in every case where a penalty is not stipulated in that Act or where in terms of that Act this House is required to determine the penalty, be determined by an order or resolution of the House, but such fine shall in no case exceed the sum of E4 000. All fines shall be paid to the Clerk for transmission to the Accountant General on account of the Consolidated Fund.” So This Is Democracy? 2007 -98- Media Institute of Southern Africa