MBABANE – The Umphakatsi of Maphilingo has disowned outgoing Senator Mkhululi Dlamini.

The Indvuna Yemcuba of Maphilingo Royal Kraal, Hhomu Shongwe, alleged that Dlamini did not own any home in the area. In his supporting affidavit of the urgent application filed by the attorney general (AG) in the Supreme Court, Shongwe disputed that Dlamini had ever been a resident of Maphilingo, under Siphofaneni Constituency. In its application to the Supreme Court, the AG wants the court to stay the High Court order that was granted by Judge Zonke Magagula on Friday. Judge Magagula ordered the Elections and Boundaries Commission (EBC) to hold a special nomination process or to include Dlamini’s name on the list of nominees of Maphilingo Royal Kraal. Judge Magagula ordered that either of the two options the court gave the EBC had to be implemented yesterday by noon.

Intervene

The AG also wants the court to intervene in terms of Section 148(1) of the Constitution, as a result of the alleged gross miscarriage of justice committed by the High Court by issuing an order that Dlamini had not prayed for, that is holding a special nomination process and the inclusion of his name among nominees of the MP position under the royal kraal. It was further prayed by the AG that the Supreme Court should intervene in terms of Section 148 (1) of the Constitution, in that the EBC was ordered to pay costs of suit, which Dlamini had not prayed for in his notice of appeal. The EBC Chairperson, Prince Mhlabuhlangene, said he believed that Judge Magagula’s ruling would put the elections into disarray, resulting in the timeline for holding elections within 60 days after Parliament dissolution, as prescribed in Section 136(1) of the Constitution Act of 2005 and the Proclamation of General Elections No.95 of 2023, not being met. The Indvuna Yemcuba, Shongwe, stated in his supporting affidavit that he had read the allegations by Dlamini that he was a resident of Maphilingo chiefdom, thus he was qualified to be nominated thereat.

Home

“I wish to categorically state that the respondent (Dlamini) does not own any home and there has never been any point in time where the respondent has ever been a resident of Maphilingo Chiefdom. “It is a known fact that before a person acquires land under Eswatini Nation Land to establish a home, he is allocated land by the traditional authorities of that area, through the system of kukhonta. “In the case of the respondent, that never happened. The respondent, therefore, does not own a home at Maphilingo Chiefdom and he is not part of our residents,” Shongwe informed the court. He argued that the place Dlamini alleged to be his home ‘is a farm which is owned and occupied by a Henwood family’. Shongwe submitted that it was, therefore, not true that Dlamini owned a home or was a resident of Maphilingo.

He confirmed that on July 22, 2023, Dlamini’s nomination was not performed and/or completed because there was a riot by the voters at Maphilingo Royal Kraal, allegedly caused by the inclusion of his name in the voters register, ‘when he was not from Maphilingo, even before his alleged nomination was formally completed’. “I further confirm that an opportunity was given to the voters to validate the nomination of the respondent, however, the voters present opposed the nomination and threatened that if the respondent was nominated, there would be no elections at Maphilingo,” Shongwe added. In the appeal papers filed on Saturday night, the EBC submitted that it was offended by the alleged miscarriage of justice in the High Court, hence the application for the Supreme Court’s intervention using its supervisory powers as envisaged under Section 148 (1) of the Constitution.

Section 148 (1) provides that: “The Supreme Court has supervisory jurisdiction over all courts of judicature and over any adjudicating authority and may, in the discharge of that jurisdiction, issue orders and directions for the purposes of enforcing or securing the enforcement of its supervisory power.”

Identified

The EBC said it had identified a number of exceptional circumstances in the form of gross irregularities, injustices and/or errors of law, allegedly committed by the learned High Court, which warranted that the Supreme Court exercised its discretionary powers and intervene in terms of the said Section 148 (1) of the Constitution. The EBC listed a number of alleged gross irregularities, injustices and/or errors of law. It has urged the Supreme Court to take note, from the onset, that in Dlamini’s notice of appeal, there was no prayer for a relief sought by him. “Despite that the applicant raised a point of law that there was no prayer for relief sought by the respondent, the court a quo overlooked that defect without any lawful justification and dismissed such point of law,” the EBC has argued. The EBC alleged that firstly, the High Court committed an error of law and, therefore, a miscarriage of justice had been done by failing to follow the procedure of the handling appeals, as outlined in Section 19 of the Voter Registration Act No. 4/2013, in particular Section 19 (3), by failing to order the party at whose request the decision is submitted, to furnish security for any costs allowed against that person, which failure to furnish such security rendered the appeal withdrawn.

Importance

“This is of grave importance because, although it has been widely reported in the newspapers that the respondent has deposited security costs, there is no evidence to prove this,” the EBC has submitted. The EBC, through its Chairperson, Prince Mhlabuhlangene, last week filed an application for an order that Dlamini should deposit an amount of E200 000, which was to be in the custodian of the registrar of the High Court. The EBC wanted Dlamini to avail the money before Friday’s appeal, in terms of Section 19(3) of the Elections Act of 2013. Dlamini had said he would raise the money and deposit it as required by the EBC and he claimed to have done so. The matter will be heard today. Dlamini is represented by Mzwandile Dlamini of M.S. Dlamini Legal in Manzini.