Silencing the PM

‘Who will be next?’ they asked. And so, with that, they sat and planned a counter-attack, plotting to undermine an institution as big as the Prime Minister’s Office. The instruction to those in the meeting was to go on the offensive ‘because the prime minister has to be stopped’. That was the question they wanted to plant in the public’s mind: if the PM could come after TLC today, who would be next tomorrow?

Those in the meeting discussed a social media onslaught, projecting The Luke Commission (TLC) as the victim of unfair treatment by the government, despite the unprecedented support it has received from politicians and Cabinet ministers alike.

This is what appears in an audio clip passed on to me early last week. In it, a team appears to be receiving instructions to launch a campaign against the prime minister following the appointment of the commission of inquiry into The Luke Commission, in part in the wake of complaints by former employees of the health institution.

Those employees had appealed to the head of government to intervene, having failed in their earlier attempts to get parliament support – and it seems, not surprisingly.

The leaked clip, now doing the rounds on social media, offers an uncomfortable glimpse into the thinking of those at Sidvokodvo; that they have weapons at their disposal against anyone who dares question what goes on at the facility, or the funding it receives from taxpayers.

Those of us who have dared to cross them recognise the approach. They went on the attack against our publication, yours truly and journalists who wrote articles exposing what we considered their shortcomings. They used the internet, social media and relentless press statements to take us on.

To me, the clip reinforces what we have long believed; that the image they present to the public does not always square with how they respond to scrutiny.

If openness and compassion are their guiding principles, surely those principles should extend to their dealings with critics? But, ask Lizzy Nkosi and the clip mentions how she suffered the same fate after a campaign to discredit her.

But I must admit that I am now doing what I promised myself I would not do again – devoting inches of this column to those people.

I was brought up to believe that one should never look forward to a wrestling match with a pig. I have lived by that principle and remain happy to decline any invitation. I believe, too, that I stand for what is right and true. My conscience remains clear whenever the subject of the people down in Sidvokodvo comes up.

I have no personal quarrel with them, or with the friends they have picked up along the way. I know the energy they bring to cultivating allies when there is something to fight for. They are relentless. Those who have experienced them will know what I mean. Those who have not may find out, sooner or later. I wish them well. For all I care, they deserve each other.

For those reasons, I was content to stay out of Luke Commission business. Then came this clip.

What alarmed me was the apparent willingness to take matters to this level. I do not know who leaked the clip, or why. But the discussion, as I understand it, raises questions about how TLC responds to scrutiny of the public money it receives.

Alongside the allegations raised by former employees and their appeals for government intervention, it strengthens the case for clear answers.

It leaves us with so many unanswered questions too, while exposing an uncomfortable question for us as a nation; should the prime minister face an organised offensive for agreeing to investigate complaints and taking a position on the funding of The Luke Commission? Must he be subjected to a social media campaign so that he feels the pressure? Must those at Sidvokodvo always get what they want, regardless of justified opposition?

Anyway, back to this clip. What strikes one about the discussion (or is it a directive) was its emphasis. The campaign being discussed was not an appeal built around showing the prime minister and the public where our money goes.

It was not about explaining how patients are treated, demonstrating the compassion the institution speaks of, or presenting the milestones of its work.

It was not a plan to flood us with testimonials. It appeared to be a plan to put the government under pressure. To put critics – including the Observer, mind-you– under pressure. To go on the offensive against the prime minister himself.

If that is a fair reading of the clip, it is troubling. Public funding invites public scrutiny. An institution receiving that funding should expect questions and be prepared to answer them, no matter what politicians and MPs think.

The argument about TLC being an institution that helps Emaswati should also be dismissed, because every other such institution is held to account and without any fuss.

And if this is how they propose to respond to the prime minister, what can the rest of us expect? And ‘who will be next?’ is what should bother us too – if they brag about successfully launching a campaign against a minister and a newspaper!

They have taken us on before. They dragged us through the mud and we watched as they celebrated what they regarded as the success of their campaign. We kept quiet because we know only too well the cost of wrestling in the mud. We also believed our reporting would stand the test of time.

I remain firmly convinced that the truth comes out, however long it takes.

If we were wrong, that, too, would eventually become clear. We should be prepared to answer for our work, just as we expect others to answer for theirs.

This clip then, does not settle every allegation against TLC. But, to my mind, it lends weight to our concerns about the lengths to which the institution will go to confront its critics.

This time, one of those critics is the prime minister of the land. Need we say more?

No one should have to go cap in hand, grovelling to the prime minister. But surely it is reasonable to expect an institution to answer questions, account for its funding and demonstrate that it serves the people well.

Surely it is reasonable to expect some gratitude for the welcome the people of Eswatini have extended and now are helping sustain it. Or is even that too much to ask? Must everyone who stands in the way become an opponent to be fought?

Cry, the beloved country. When public money and political loyalties meet, the public deserves to know whose interests are being served.

As for any matters requiring police investigation, we shall leave those to the police.

MPs retreating to the old

It obviously makes good business sense for Members of Parliament to find an opportunity or two to justify a sitting allowance.

The retreat this past week was, therefore, a no-brainer.

You get the sense, too, that all MPs are looking for these days – if not throughout their entire term, to be honest – is a trip and a benchmarking exercise to attend.

But we should not get too hung up on how MPs make their few little cents. After all, that is the nature of the beast.

It is normal at this time of the year for MPs suddenly to get busy, pushing Bills through their final stages and making sure the budget is utilised before Parliament reopens for business in the new-year. In that sense, the retreat was business as usual.

There seemed little to distinguish it from a tick-box exercise either – just a few housekeeping matters left outstanding for too long being attend to, in our books. Perhaps something the clerk to Parliament needed to deliver to earn a useful score in his appraisal. Who knows?

What worried me most was how familiar the outcome felt. There was little to suggest an appetite for improving ethical conduct or the efficiency of parliamentary work.

You would think MPs might at least consider how better performance could influence their return to office – which we know is their favourite pastime.

That someone had to be invited to tell them this baffles me. It is hardly rocket science.

What we did expect was a change in posture towards the Leadership Code of Conduct Bill (2025), which sets out restrictions on the acceptance of gifts, donations and hospitality by public officers.

This matters because public officers should expect scrutiny of the gifts and donations they receive, including whether they may keep them for their personal benefit – something MPs seem quite fond of.

You can imagine, then, the grumbling at the prospect of such restrictions.

These are the same people who expect to hold others accountable and demand integrity from them.

Yet, bona, they should not be expected to lead by example. They should not be asked to uphold standards worthy of their stature and position!

Quite absurd. But who are we to argue?

If anything, we have come to accept that MPs are after one thing. Unless their conduct changes, that is what will define the remainder of their term.