Human rights triumph in Eswatini top court ruling

In an extraordinary judgment, the highest court in eSwatini has come out in support of human rights and against the kingdom’s police chief. This is almost unheard of, particularly in the way that it outlines constitutional principles that must rule in democratic countries, writes Carmel Rickard on the Legalbrief site. The judgment, she writes, is one for the record books: most unusual in a state whose human rights credentials are constantly questioned. This is a judgment for the record books: Eswatini’s highest court has come out in favour of human rights and against the established order in that kingdom. All most unusual in a state whose human rights credentials are constantly questioned. The case is an appeal by the Royal Eswatini Police Service staff association (Reposa) against a decision of the High Court in 2022. The High Court found in favour of Eswatini’s National Commissioner of Police, the Commission of Correctional Services and the Attorney-General. And the earlier court judgment is typical of what observers might have expected. The Supreme Court decision, however, delivered with commendable speed on 29 November, can only be described a milestone.

The dispute between the two sides has its origins in a circular, issued by the Ministry of Public Service in 2014. At the time, writes Rickard on the Legalbrief site, it was said that the circular was at least in part intended to improve the lives and welfare of members of the Royal Eswatini Police Service by increasing their salaries. But what happened in fact was something different. It was to be implemented in two phases, the first would affect senior officers and it was immediately put in place. Phase two, affecting the more junior members, has never been implemented. As the Supreme Court put it, ‘government reneged from its legal obligations as contained in the circular, after awarding senior officers lofty salaries.’ Of course, this led to ill feeling between the junior and senior officers, and, as the Supreme Court wrote, by failing to live up to its promises and creating that ill-will, the action of non-implementation ‘was itself a threat to national security’. The junior officers were vulnerable, but their seniors were insulated in every way. And when the junior staff wanted their share of the money promised in the circular, the Commissioner of Police used his disciplinary powers to challenge the way the juniors went about expressing their complaints, namely presenting their grievances through a petition, delivered after a completely peaceful march, to the Prime Minister, their line officer. The Prime Minister’s office received their petition most cordially, and agreed to deal with their problem.