IF KING MSWATI WELCOMES CRITICISM, WHY ARE JOURNALISTS, ACTIVISTS AND DISSIDENTS STILL UNDER PRESSURE?

King Mswati’s spokesperson Percy Simelane has painted a picture of a monarchy that respects journalists, values criticism, and understands the important role of the media in society. According to Simelane, the King is not hostile toward independent media and instead learns from criticism without holding grudges.

His comments are welcome. In any society, leaders should listen to criticism, engage with the media, and understand that journalists serve as a bridge between those in power and the public.

However, while the King’s spokesperson speaks of openness and tolerance, many emaSwati are likely to ask a different question: if the monarchy truly welcomes criticism, why do so many journalists, activists, trade union leaders, and pro-democracy campaigners continue to face intimidation, arrests, persecution, and exile?

Speaking to this Swaziland News, Simelane said every journalist is a conduit to the public and therefore deserves timely responses regardless of where they come from. He explained that his experience as a journalist allows him to understand the pressures of deadlines and the importance of responding quickly to media inquiries.

He also praised King Mswati, saying he serves a leader who understands the importance of explaining decisions to the public and who does not react negatively when criticized.

“I serve a master who does not flinch when criticized but learns from everything said about him without holding a grudge,” said Simelane.

Those are powerful words.

Unfortunately, the lived reality of many critics of the monarchy tells a different story.

Over the years, numerous political activists have been arrested, detained, forced into exile, or subjected to various forms of harassment for expressing views that challenge the Tinkhundla system. Pro-democracy Members of Parliament have been imprisoned. Trade union leaders have repeatedly complained of intimidation. Human rights defenders have documented cases of torture and political persecution.

The assassination of prominent human rights lawyer Thulani Maseko remains one of the most painful reminders of the dangers facing those who openly criticize the system. Years later, many questions surrounding his killing remain unanswered.

If criticism is genuinely welcomed, why do so many critics feel unsafe?

This contradiction is at the heart of Eswatini’s political debate.

The spokesperson may indeed be accessible to journalists. He may answer questions promptly and engage with both local and international media. That is commendable. But freedom of the press cannot be measured solely by whether government officials respond to questions.

True press freedom exists when journalists can investigate corruption without fear.

It exists when reporters can criticize powerful figures without worrying about arrests, lawsuits designed to intimidate them, or threats to their safety.

It exists when citizens can consume information from diverse viewpoints without interference.

Similarly, tolerance for criticism is not demonstrated through statements. It is demonstrated through actions.

A government that welcomes criticism does not imprison political opponents.

A government that welcomes criticism does not ban peaceful gatherings.

A government that welcomes criticism does not treat calls for democratic reform as threats to national security.

The reality is that Eswatini remains Africa’s last absolute monarchy. Political parties are excluded from meaningful participation in governance, and power remains concentrated around the monarchy and its institutions. In such an environment, criticism inevitably becomes a sensitive issue because it challenges the foundations of the system itself.

That is why Simelane’s remarks should be judged not by their intentions but by the broader political environment in which they are made.

If King Mswati truly believes criticism is valuable, then the next step is not simply listening to journalists. The next step is creating an environment where all citizens can speak freely without fear.

The ultimate test of a government’s commitment to freedom is not how it treats praise.

It is how it treats dissent.

And until journalists, activists, opposition voices, and ordinary citizens can express themselves without intimidation, many emaSwati will continue to question whether the monarchy’s commitment to criticism extends beyond words and into reality.