Award-winnning Swaziland Environmentalist and Public Attorney Thuli Makama has built a reputation of standing up for the rights of civil society and local communities.
In this conclusion of a two-part interview, Makama talks to AllAfrica's Saratu Abiola about her work on reversing the effects of an amendment to the country's Game Act of 1991, which allows rangers in game parks to seek out those they suspect as poachers. She also talks about how she hopes to focus the energies of her organization, Yonge Nawe, in the years to come.
What led you to do 'Cries in the Wild,' the documentary about poaching in the Nhlantambita community?
I don't know if we can call it poaching. Poaching is a criminal offense and it has to be determined by a court of law using the tools to test whether a criminal act has been committed and what category it belongs to.
I'm making this correction, because I think it is a way of criminalizing the whole community. For instance, you will find reporters saying 'Poacher Shot Dead by Rangers'. No, if we decide to name the crime that has been committed out there it should read 'A Poacher Killed by Murderers,' because how can you call others - killers - rangers and then actually give a criminal label to others outside of the court process?
Who are the people that are regarded as poachers?
These are communities where the people have always survived by hunting and gathering resources. That is the only way they earn a living. And it is that way because there is no other source of economic activity in their communities. So either they get a source of employment from the parks, or those that cannot have to go into the wild for a way to live, to find food, to build their houses, with all those materials found in the wild. So, yes, I think we have to be more cautious with how we define these things.
The language in the Games Act Amendment of 1991 is quite strong in the rights it gives rangers. Was it passed under the same environmental minister who was behind legislation enabling rangers to kill poachers?
No, it's not. It's long before her time. The only common element is the owners of the game parks that are protected by the legislation. So there has been a conclusion that they participated in the amendment because, like you said, there was strong language. And it's giving lots of power to individuals, going further and letting them delegate the power that they deem fit.
It's a bit of a strange amendment. It happened at the height of a pending criminal case against one of the owners of the game parks who had walked into an inn and shot down some people and two of them died. Some of the widows were calling for justice for the death of [one's] husband. When her call gained some traction with some lawyers they decided to offer her legal services. That is when I think the other side decided to amend the law so they are covered.
Was it in the Nhlantambita community that poaching occurred the most?
The community had been evicted from their ancestral lands to give way for the expansion of one of the game reserves.
And a man named Musa Ghamedze was among those who were killed, correct?
Musa came from that community. Just to show how unjust this law is, it actually allows [rangers] to go all over the place. They actually went to Musa's home. [He] was gunned down in front of his children. He had gone to his girlfriend's home to check on his children, three very young kids, and that is where he was shot down in the presence of the police.
Most of the people that have been killed have been killed outside of the game reserves.
So they're not actually caught in the act of poaching?
Most of them, no. Most of the cases that we are pursuing are of people who were followed to their homes on a day they had not been doing anything associated with poaching. And the story is: 'such-and-such a time you once poached or we suspect that you earn a living through poaching.'
What is happening is the animals come out of the parks, they get into the community fields and destroy all the crops that people have, they're not compensated and they cannot kill the animals and aggressively get them out of their fields.
So things have reached a head because of the marauding animals in the field. Communities were extremely agitated, so the minister went to all these groups saying, 'It is them (game parks) that will help you.' Yet, it is the same group that should be putting up wildlife fencing so that wildlife does not come out and be a nuisance to the neighboring communities.
Was there any legislation protecting the rights of these hunters and gathers?
None at all. The legislation only talks about the rights of the owners of the game parks. The owners are actually provided for to the point that the suspected poachers have the responsibility to compensate them, to give them monetary compensation after going through any form of due process.
The Game Act does not protect all rangers. If rangers face difficulties and dangers in their jobs, then all rangers should be protected. But the act only protects eight rangers. It calls them by name: three family members and five of their employees.
So your documentary was to bring attention to this issue, and what was the reaction to it?
The documentary was at another level: we're no longer just bringing attention but we had been called out to defend ourselves. We had done a study and highlighted the situation of the communities, the neighboring areas. All private game park owners had been sent a questionnaire. Some refused to respond. One chose to respond - he felt [the study] was targeting them.
And so they got space in the paper and it got extremely personal. They attacked me, my organization, my husband.
We decided to take cameras, go back into the communities and capture these stories audio-visually. We actually paid for space on the national TV to have it aired. We've only got one television station in the country. And an hour before it was aired the TV station called us up and said, 'Look, we cannot air it anymore.' So when that happened we were forced to cut copies and distribute it as widely as we could so people could still see it, to confirm it.
The stories that you hear about these communities are unbelievable even for our own local Swaziland context. It's difficult to believe that it's happening there. So when people were responding with shock to the report, the study, we thought, 'Let's go and get visuals for them so they can see these people and they can hear them speak.' So when we did this documentary we were already defending ourselves, confirming that we are not hallucinating. There is an issue out there.
What you describe sounds like something that can happen in any other African country, but with Swaziland being a kingdom, how might this make the situation unique and how does this affect your work as a public interest attorney?
I think the difference in working within our government context is that there are certain issues that you cannot question and the Game Act is one good example. The issues that [are wanted] to be kept away from public scrutiny and scrutiny by other arms of government are usually then protected under the king's office. The Game Act is also a good example of that; The Game Act in 1997/98 was actually taken away from government, moved down to the king's office. Once it was at the king's office we were told that Big Game Parks was now administering on behalf of the king. The king in Swaziland has all powers vested in him and is above the law.
Every time when it's budget time, the minister of environment would always be asked, 'What are you doing about the issue of the Game Act and all the killings that are going on?' The minister would always respond: 'Excuse me, I'm not able to do anything because it's not under my portfolio - it's in the king's office.'
The king's office is never debated in parliament. So those are the challenges of having all powers concentrated in the king because it means the king at some point becomes the main focus of all the protests that are going on out there. Yet, if the different arms of government were continuing to have full responsibility for their portfolios we wouldn't have to say anything about the king. We would be talking about the ministers, we would be talking about the failing MPs. But now you find yourself having to bring focus and scrutiny on the institution of the king - even unnecessarily.
So those are the main challenges of working in a setting like ours. Some individuals have found a way of manipulating that and making sure that they avoid public scrutiny; they avoid talking to anyone because they account to the king.
What did the king have to say about the NGOs issue and the poachers issue?
He hasn't made any statement on either, but you know when our laws are formed they go through parliament and they have to go through the king for the final signature. We want to think he reads and he agrees with the laws that are presented before him, when he actually signed and allowed the amendment that was specifically provided for NGOs to join the management board, one wants to think he was agreeing with it. Also when the king signed the amendment to the Game Act, giving immunity to eight individuals, one is forced to think that he was agreeing with it.
I think that the biggest task now is when it's time to enforce what he signed. We're trying to find a way of enabling the court to look at the Game Act, look at what the king signed and the way that it is being enforced in practice and have them give us their opinion on whether this is how it should be done. Does it pass all the tests of natural justice? Does it pass the test of fairness? That is the opportunity that we have not had. It keeps being blocked by vested interests at every turn.
You hinted about poverty when talking about the Games Act and the amendment. Are there any other areas in Swaziland where the environment and vested interests conflict, having an effect on socio-economic conditions?
Definitely - the use of water. Most of our communities depend on river water for domestic needs and we have very good laws that say when the river water runs low priority should be given to local communities for everyday survival, but that doesn't happen. You would find that whatever the drought situation is in those areas, the commercial interests will take precedent over the local community needs.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Secondly, most of these industries will try and cut costs in terms of disposing of their waste and they will just throw it into the rivers. Because the communities rely on that water that creates another source of competition again. The local communities find a source of life, the industries see a waste sink, so we have that challenge in terms of balancing the interest and expectation.
And also the issue of land. We are seeing a lot of communities being moved and evicted from their ancestral lands, lands that they have occupied for decades and decades. They're being evicted to make space for commercial interests. It's an issue about access to land, but also there's an issue about the quality of the soil in terms of competition. Because we are seeing a lot of commercial agriculture, industrial agriculture moving out into the rural areas, and that is affecting the land use patterns. Recently, we had to resist one attempt to have a township on the most fertile part of the country. It took a very long struggle but eventually it was done. And those are the sorts of competition that you find.
The issue of environmental degradation in the country is much broader than what I've just mentioned. We are faced with issues of land degradation, and they are mainly from improper land use and also improper farming practices by the local communities at the local level. And then it's easier, because all you need to do is place the awareness. Communities will not willingly abuse their environment so where you find such abuses, because they depend on these resources, usually all you need to do is just to give them information on what the best practices are and they quickly follow. Industries need to be encouraged by invoking the law.
What are your next steps?
I think this is just the beginning. The attention does not resolve the issue. We still need to make a big push, take advantage of the momentum and the interest from all over and make one big push for getting the Game Act to be presented before the court. We can't continue having it in our statutes and we can't continue having it enforced the way it is.
And then we also need to assist the families who have lost their loved ones, lost a lot in the course of enforcement of the Game Act.
Related:
Part I of Thuli Makama Interview - http://allafrica.com/stories/201004300861.html
