In March 2007, the Times of Swaziland Group of Newspapers was forced into publishing an abject apology to Swaziland’s King Mwasti III after the Times Sunday ran a news commentary sourced from the international news agency Afrol News which blamed the king for many of the kingdom’s economic ills. Such open criticism of the King is not allowed in Swaziland (not even in so-called independent newspapers like the Times Sunday). The publisher was summoned to the Royal Palace and told to issue a public apology or his newspapers would be closed down. This is not an isolated incident of censorship by the King. Earlier in February 2007, the King’s chief executive officer, Bheki Dlamini barred journalists at a press conference from asking the King questions relating to the recently formed Swaziland Police Union, whose formation had shaken the Swazi establishment. Defamation People in prominent positions, including Parliamentarians, continue to use the law courts as a way to harass journalists. Often, after the initial threat, no court case actually takes place. However, the threat of action is often enough to quieten journalists. In 2007 the Times of Swaziland had one lawsuit from the Minister of Education over an article on HIV/AIDS. The Swazi Observer was sued by an MP over a report of an alleged assault. What is common to all the defamation cases is the unrealistically high damages that are claimed. Legislative Environment The Swazi Government is keen to give the impression that it is committed to reforming the 30-plus restrictive media laws that currently exist in the kingdom, but media stakeholders doubt its sincerity. In 2007 the Government introduced seven Parliamentary Bills, including the, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Bill, Swaziland Media Commission Bill, Swaziland Public Broadcasting Corporation Bill, Swaziland Broadcasting Bill and the Books and Newspapers Bill. All these bills purport to place the interests of the media at their centres. However, going by what they have to offer, the fact that Swaziland is not a democracy was apparently overlooked. These bills have not originated from within Swaziland. A Commonwealth Secretariat consultant was engaged to draft the bills, relying for inspiration on bills that presently exist in democratic countries. In Swaziland, customary law, which has equal status with the Roman Dutch Common Law and statutes, continues to restrict freedom of the media and freedom of expression. For instance, there are cultural dictates that prevent people from criticizing or questioning those in authority. Although, in theory, the Constitution is supreme over all other laws, unwritten customary law wields enormous power in practice and because Swazi Law and Custom is not codified, it cannot be tested against the Constitution. Members of a workshop held for media stakeholders to discuss the bills before they were piloted in Parliament saw the unreality of the approach taken by the consultant and concluded that their own input was irrelevant because ‘traditional authorities’ in the kingdom had not been consulted on the bills’ contents. Since nothing happened in Swaziland without the consent of these ‘traditional authorities’ the bills as presently written had no value, they said. So This Is Democracy? 2007 -89- Media Institute of Southern Africa