Chief Justice Bheki Maphalala has attributed the persistence of corruption in Eswatini to political interference in the operations of the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC).
He said the Commission could not effectively execute its mandate while subject to political influence.
Addressing a press conference yesterday, Maphalala responded to remarks made by Prime Minister Russell Mmiso Dlamini in Parliament, where the premier reportedly said corruption continued because the courts refused to issue warrants of arrest.
Maphalala dismissed the assertion, maintaining that the real obstacle in the fight against corruption was interference in the work of the ACC.
“The cause of the challenges is that the ACC is not free to conduct its mandate. There is too much political interference in the Commission,” he emphasised.
He said the ACC was established through the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006, with the view for it to operate independently and should not be subject to the direction or control of any individual.
According to Maphalala, the Commission was appointed by His Majesty King Mswati III on the advice of the Judiciary, meaning it reports to the king rather than Cabinet.
He added that the law expressly provides that the Commission must function independently and without political influence.
He argued that the prime minister’s interference and control over the Commission was unlawful because it undermined the Commission’s independence and its ability to carry out investigations.
Maphalala further criticised the existence of the Tripartite Anti-Corruption Task Team that was appointed by the prime minister to support the ACC, saying such a body had no legal basis.
“I am also aware that there is a select committee that was appointed by the prime minister with the goal to support the ACC. That committee is also unlawful,” he said.
He stressed that there was no provision in the law authorising the prime minister to direct or control the Commission.
Maphalala said the legislation establishing the ACC was deliberately designed to shield it from political control, warning that allowing politicians to influence the Commission would create opportunities for abuse.
He said if the Commission were controlled by any individual, it could be used to pursue political enemies while protecting certain interests instead of impartially investigating corruption.
The chief justice said politicians should refrain from interfering in the Commission’s operations because they had political interests that could compromise its work.
He added that the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs’ responsibility was limited to ensuring the ACC received adequate funding and should not extend to influencing its operations.
“Until the political interference ceases, the Commission will not succeed in its mandate,” he said.
Furthermore, Maphalala insisted that the courts had a constitutional duty to ensure there was sufficient evidence before issuing warrants of arrest.
He explained that the ACC was responsible for investigating allegations of corruption and, where sufficient evidence existed, referring the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), who would then apply to the courts for warrants of arrest.
“The courts are not rubber stamps that issue warrants of arrest whenever applications are made. Warrants of arrest are issued only after the court has been satisfied that there is enough evidence against the person or organisation suspected of corruption,” he said.
The CJ added that without credible evidence, corruption cases could not proceed because the Constitution required the courts to protect fundamental human rights and ensure that no one was arrested without legal justification.
In this regard, Maphalala revealed that some corruption cases brought before the courts had been dismissed after judges found insufficient evidence to support the allegations.
“For this, we then heard that the courts were accused of being corrupt too. This shocked us because we are not rubber stamps.
“We need to thoroughly assess each case to ascertain if there is enough evidence,” he said.
He further noted that corruption remained a national concern, pointing out that His Majesty King Mswati III had repeatedly called for decisive action against corruption during the official opening of Parliament, while members of the public had also raised the issue during Sibaya People’s Parliament.
Maphalala said he had decided to address the issue through the media because he did not usually have an opportunity to respond in Parliament, where his name was frequently mentioned during debates.
JUDICIARY URGES RESPECT FOR SEPARATION OF POWERS
The Judiciary has called for respect among the country’s three arms of government.
Chief Justice Bheki Maphalala said none should interfere in the affairs of another as this undermines constitutional governance.
Maphalala made the remarks while responding to a question on the state of relations between the Judiciary and Members of Parliament, following his decision to address issues raised in Parliament through a media briefing instead of engaging legislators privately.
He explained that the country’s governance structure was founded on the three equal arms of government: the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary, all of which reported directly to His Majesty King Mswati III.
Maphalala said the Constitution clearly defined the responsibilities of each institution and required them to operate independently without encroaching on one another’s mandate.
He noted that Parliament was headed by the Speaker in the House of Assembly and the President of the Senate, while the prime minister chaired Cabinet but was not the head of government under the Constitution.
The chief justice said the Judiciary was headed by himself, who also served as chairperson of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC).
He further clarified that the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs was not the head of the Judiciary but merely served as the intermediary between the Judiciary and Cabinet, conveying matters concerning the courts to the Executive.
Maphalala emphasised that the Judiciary did not interfere with the work of either Parliament or Cabinet and expected the same respect in return.
“As the Judiciary, we do not disturb the operations of either Cabinet or Parliament, so we also expect not to be disturbed in our operations,” he said.
He maintained that adherence to the constitutional separation of powers was essential to ensuring that each arm of government carried out its responsibilities independently and without undue influence.
