Opinion; Subjects: ESWATINI, ARBITRARY DETENTION; [WGAD: UNO-Arbeitsgruppe über willkürliche Inhaftierung, willkürliche Haft; Groupe de travail sur la détention arbitraire; Gruppo di lavoro sulla detenzione arbitraria]
Volltext (verifizierbarer Originaltext)
GE.25-15860 (E) 221025 221025
Human Rights Council
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention at its 103rd session, 25–29 August 2025
Opinion No. 55/2025 concerning Mthandeni Dube and Mduduzi Bacede
Mabuza (Eswatini)
1.
The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established in resolution 1991/42 of
the Commission on Human Rights. In its resolution 1997/50, the Commission extended and
clarified the mandate of the Working Group. Pursuant to General Assembly resolution 60/251
and Human Rights Council decision 1/102, the Council assumed the mandate of the
Commission. The Council most recently extended the mandate of the Working Group for a
three-year period in its resolution 51/8.
2.
In accordance with its methods of work,1 on 9 December 2024, the Working Group
transmitted to the Government of Eswatini a communication concerning Mthandeni Dube
and Mduduzi Bacede Mabuza. The Government replied to the communication on 7 February
2025. The State is a Party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
3.
The Working Group regards deprivation of liberty as arbitrary in the following cases:
(a)
When it is clearly impossible to invoke any legal basis justifying the
deprivation of liberty (as when a person is kept in detention after the completion of his or her
sentence or despite an amnesty law applicable to him or her) (category I);
(b)
When the deprivation of liberty results from the exercise of the rights or
freedoms guaranteed by articles 7, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and, insofar as States Parties are concerned, by articles 12, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25,
26 and 27 of the Covenant (category II);
(c)
When the total or partial non-observance of the international norms relating to
the right to a fair trial, established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the
relevant international instruments accepted by the States concerned, is of such gravity as to
give the deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character (category III);
(d)
When asylum-seekers, immigrants or refugees are subjected to prolonged
administrative custody without the possibility of administrative or judicial review or remedy
(category IV);
(e)
When the deprivation of liberty constitutes a violation of international law on
the grounds of discrimination, based on birth, national, ethnic or social origin, language,
religion, economic condition, political or other opinion, gender, sexual orientation, disability
or any other status, that aims towards or can result in ignoring the equality of human beings
(category V).
1 A/HRC/36/38.
United Nations
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/55
General Assembly
Distr.: General
23 October 2025
Original: English
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/55
2
GE.25-15860
1.
Submissions
(a)
Communication from the source
4.
Mthandeni Dube and Mduduzi Bacede Mabuza are former members of the House of
Assembly of Eswatini, where they represented the Ngwempisi and the Hosea constituencies
respectively for several years between 2008 and 2023.
5.
According to the source, despite the adoption of the new Constitution in 2005, the
King of Eswatini retains broad powers. Dissent is suppressed, political opponents reportedly
face persecution under vague laws, such as the Sedition and Subversive Activities Act, 1938,
and the Suppression of Terrorism Act, 2008, and genuine participation in public affairs is
stifled.
6.
At a series of meetings during the month of June 2021, Messrs. Dube and Mabuza
allegedly called for constitutional reform and greater financial transparency, and for the
Prime Minister and all other ministers to be democratically elected rather than appointed by
the King.
7.
On 24 June 2021, amid a wave of pro-democracy protests in the country, the Prime
Minister issued a decree banning citizens from delivering petitions to parliamentarians to
demand democratic reforms. The same day, Messrs. Dube and Mabuza gave public speeches
condemning the ban as unconstitutional. They reiterated their call for the democratic election
of the Prime Minister and urged citizens to petition the Government on the issue, despite the
decree. They also held press conferences on the issues discussed in their speeches, such as
the high unemployment and poverty rates, corruption and the country’s poor economic state.
8.
The source states that on 25 July 2021, approximately 20 police officers arrested
Mr. Dube in his home for allegedly committing a terrorist act in breach of section 5 (1) of the
Suppression of Terrorism Act, 2008. A similar number of police officers arrested Mr. Mabuza
for contravening regulation 4 of the Disaster Management (Coronavirus (COVID-19))
Regulations, 2020, after barricading the gate to his office and threatening to shoot him unless
he surrendered.
9.
According to the source, on 26 July 2021, the two men were charged on the basis of
the two aforementioned laws, for inciting people to revolt against the State, which allegedly
led to riots around the country, causing loss of life, injuries and destruction of property. The
charge against Mr. Mabuza, relating to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), was brought
because on 5 June 2021, he had allegedly failed to keep a register and ensure the sanitization
of the participants of a meeting he had convened.
10.
On 6 August 2021, the High Court reportedly dismissed the first bail application made
by Messrs. Dube and Mabuza, stating notably that they were a flight risk and likely to
interfere with witnesses.
11.
On 14 September 2021, the High Court dismissed their second bail application, which
was based on new facts and changed circumstances, on the basis that it was precluded from
examining a second bail application in the same case.
12.
The source reports that on 15 October 2021, the prosecutor filed an amended
indictment charging the two men under the Suppression of Terrorism Act, 2008, and the
Sedition and Subversive Activities Act, 1938, for allegedly making public statements
encouraging disobedience of a banning order and rejection of the Prime Minister’s
appointment, which were deemed to have seditious intent. The two men were also charged
with murder for allegedly killing two individuals on or about 29 June 2021. The source claims
that the deaths occurred during the protests, when a protester drove into the crowd.
Nevertheless, neither Mr. Dube nor Mr. Mabuza were reportedly anywhere near the scene of
the accident and, to date, the driver of the vehicle has not been charged.
13.
The trial of Messrs. Dube and Mabuza began on 16 November 2021.
14.
The source states that Mr. Mabuza was placed in solitary confinement from
10 December 2021 to 10 May 2022, without any explanation. He was not allowed to meet
anyone other than prison guards, his family was allowed only to bring him meals and he was
not allowed to call his lawyer.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/55
GE.25-15860
3
15.
On 12 May 2022, the Supreme Court reportedly dismissed Messrs. Dube and
Mabuza’s appeals against the first and second bail decisions. With regard to the first bail
decision, it held that the appeal was statute-barred and that the application for condonation
that they had filed concurrently lacked detail. With regard to the second bail decision, it
affirmed the High Court’s inability to examine a second bail application.
16.
The source claims that, on 22 September 2022, Messrs. Dube and Mabuza were
reportedly attacked in their cell by members of a tactical unit of the department of correctional
services responsible for transporting them to and from court. They kicked and beat both men
with batons, allegedly without reason. Mr. Dube’s eyes were severely damaged and
Mr. Mabuza’s nose and rib cage were injured. The two men were not allowed to call their
family members that day. One of their lawyers was denied access to them, while another was
made to wait two hours before meeting them. The department of correctional services refused
to take the two men to a private clinic for medical treatment, forcing their lawyers to file an
urgent request to the High Court on 23 September 2022 to that end, which was successful.
17.
On 17 November 2022, Messrs. Dube and Mabuza’s lawyers reportedly filed a third
bail application, contending that the grounds upon which the first bail application had been
denied was no longer valid. Notably, they argued that there was no likelihood that their clients
would endanger public safety, that they would not evade trial, given that they had already
testified before the court, and that their witnesses, having already testified, could not be
intimidated by them.
18.
The source states that the trial ended in January 2023.
19.
On 15 December 2022, the High Court denied Messrs. Dube and Mabuza’s third bail
application, referring to a previous bail application by the same parties under the same charge.
20.
On 21 January 2023, a lawyer who had previously represented Messrs. Dube and
Mabuza in these proceedings was murdered at his home.
21.
On 1 June 2023, the High Court convicted Messrs. Dube and Mabuza of contravening
section 5 (1) of the Suppression of Terrorism Act and sections 4 (a) and (b) of the Sedition
and Subversive Activities Act, and on the two murder charges. Mr. Mabuza was acquitted of
the COVID-19-related charge.
22.
On 29 September 2023, Mr. Mabuza was again attacked by officers of the department
of correctional services for asking to discuss with their supervisor the repeated denial of his
right to communicate with his family and his lawyer. On the same day and the following
morning, the officials did not allow his wife to see him and bring him food. In the afternoon,
she was granted access to Mr. Mabuza, who had wounds on his eyes, nose, hands, arms,
abdomen and back. Furthermore, Mr. Mabuza’s lawyer was denied access to him on
30 September 2023. On 1 October 2023, Mr. Mabuza’s lawyer submitted an urgent
application to the High Court, requesting adequate medical treatment at a private clinic,
which was granted.
23.
According to the source, throughout their detention, Messrs. Dube and Mabuza could
only meet their lawyers in a room equipped with cameras, enabling prison officials to listen
to their confidential conversations. The police also intercepted calls between the men and
their lawyers. The latter have reportedly also experienced various instances of intimidation
and harassment.
24.
From 10 December 2021 to October 2022 and from April to June 2023, Messrs. Dube
and Mabuza were reportedly denied the right to call or meet with their family members.
Again, on 6 October 2023, Mr. Mabuza’s family was denied the right to visit him. Their
access to lawyers during that time was restricted and limited to one consultation per week.
25.
On 15 July 2024, Mr. Mabuza was sentenced to 25 years and Mr. Dube to 18 years in
prison.
Legal analysis
26.
The source argues that Mr. Dube’s and Mr. Mabuza’s detentions are arbitrary under
categories I, II, III and V.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/55
4
GE.25-15860
a.
Category I
27.
The source argues that the repeated denials of Messrs. Dube and Mabuza’s bail
applications lacked the requisite individualized re-examination of the reasonableness and
necessity of the pretrial detention. The High Court’s decision of 15 December 2022 on the
third bail application contained no consideration of the fact that Messrs. Dube and Mabuza
no longer represented an alleged risk to public safety, that they could not evade trial given
that they had already testified before the court, nor that their witnesses were no longer at risk
of being intimidated, given that they had already testified before the court. Furthermore, the
source observes that the High Court’s denials of bail did not consider the availability of
alternatives to detention. Instead, its decisions were based only on the fact that the High
Court’s rejection of the first bail application could not be revisited.
28.
Moreover, the source argues that the provisions of the Suppression of Terrorism Act,
2008, and the Sedition and Subversive Activities Act, 1938, do not satisfy the principle of
legality, which requires laws to be formulated with sufficient precision to allow the law to be
understood and one’s conduct regulated accordingly. The source notes that the Government
extensively uses those laws to silence dissent and wrongfully convict political opponents and
activists.2
b.
Category II
29.
The source argues that Mr. Mabuza and Mr. Dube were arrested, detained and
convicted for the content of their political speeches, in violation of their rights to freedom of
opinion and of expression, their right to take part in the conduct of public affairs and their
rights to freedom of association and of assembly.
30.
The source maintains that their speeches did not incite revolt against the Government
or lead to riots, but peacefully advocated for democratic reform and for citizens to continue
delivering petitions to their representatives despite the ban on petitions imposed by the Prime
Minister.
c.
Category III
31.
The source argues that Messrs. Dube and Mabuza were denied their right to legal
assistance and adequate time and facilities for the preparation of their defence under
article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant.
32.
After the 22 September 2022 attack, one of their lawyers was reportedly denied access
to the two men. The same day, another of their lawyers was made to wait two hours before
being able to consult them. Again, on 30 September 2023, Mr. Mabuza’s lawyer was denied
access to his client following the attack on Mr. Mabuza the previous day. Furthermore,
throughout their detention, Messrs. Dube and Mabuza have met with their lawyers in a
consultation room equipped with live cameras, enabling prison officials to listen to their
confidential conversations.
33.
In addition, according to the source, Messrs. Dube and Mabuza’s lawyers have been
subjected to harassment and intimidation due to their professional activities: they have been
followed to their homes to such an extent that one lawyer has had to change sleeping
locations, and unknown individuals have entered some of the lawyers’ residential compounds
and fired gunshots in the air. The lawyers have been blacklisted, preventing them from
working with corporate clients, and have had their bank accounts frozen by State agencies.
34.
The source further argues that the Government violated principles 15 and 19 of the
Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or
Imprisonment and rule 58 of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment
of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules) by denying Messrs. Dube and Mabuza the right to
have visitors and call their relatives between 10 December 2021 and October 2022 and
2 African Commission and Human and Peoples’ Rights, “Resolution on the situation of human rights in
the Kingdom of Eswatini” (ACHPR/Res.554 (LXXV) 2023), para. 1; and Office of the
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, “Eswatini: UN experts commemorate human
rights defender Thulani Maseko, deplore lack of accountability for his killing”, 22 January 2024.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/55
GE.25-15860
5
between April 2023 and June 2023, and by not allowing them to call their family members
after they were attacked on 22 September 2022.
35.
The source claims that Mr. Dube’s and Mr. Mabuza’s cells are dirty, the roofs
sometimes leak and the two men have been forced to take cold baths in the winter.
Furthermore, they have been subjected to body searches in their cells at unreasonable times,
in addition to having had to strip naked before both male and female officers. The source also
recalls that Mr. Mabuza was placed in prolonged solitary confinement from 10 December
2021 to 10 May 2022. It argues that these conditions, combined with the physical attacks and
denial of medical care, affected Mr. Dube’s and Mr. Mabuza’s ability to prepare for their
defence, reaching the level of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
36.
In addition, according to the source, civil society organizations have concluded that
the judiciary in Eswatini lacks independence: the King holds ultimate power over the
appointment and removal of Supreme Court and High Court justices, acting on advice from
the Judicial Service Commission, which is chaired by the Chief Justice and consists of other
royal appointees. 3 The King therefore allegedly influences the judicial decision-making
process, especially in cases involving criticism of the monarchy. The source maintains that
the High Court and Supreme Court’s treatment of Messrs. Dube and Mabuza’s case further
exemplifies the lack of judicial impartiality: although Mr. Mabuza, Mr. Dube and the
witnesses – no longer at risk of influence or intimidation – had testified before the High
Court, Messrs. Dube and Mabuza’s bail applications were still denied.
37.
The source points out that Messrs. Dube and Mabuza were convicted on 1 June 2023
(nearly two years after their arrest) and sentenced on 15 July 2024 (nearly three years after
their arrest). Their case is not especially complex and the procedural delays are not
attributable to them. The source argues that, as a result, the duration of their pretrial detention
exceeds any reasonable standard. It concludes that, by depriving Messrs. Dube and Mabuza
of their right to be tried within a reasonable time, the Government violated articles 9 (3) and
14 (3) (c) of the Covenant.
38.
The source claims that, taken together, many of the violations show that the
Government also violated Mr. Dube’s and Mr. Mabuza’s right to be presumed innocent.
d.
Category V
39.
The source submits that the reasons behind Mr. Dube’s and Mr. Mabuza’s detention
and their treatment indicate that the authorities discriminated against them because of their
political opinions and status as pro-democracy opposition politicians, in violation of articles
2 and 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 2 (1) and 26 of the
Covenant. The source posits that this case falls within the pattern of systematic repression
that has taken place since the May 2021 pro-democracy protest and that their views were
used as the basis for the terrorist, sedition and murder charges.
40.
The source also notes that the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights
has condemned Eswatini for its pattern of victimization, harassment, intimidation and
targeting of human rights defenders and pro-democracy leaders, and has denounced its
detention of political prisoners, with explicit reference to Messrs. Dube and Mabuza.4
(b)
Response from the Government
41.
On 9 December 2024, the Working Group transmitted the allegations concerning
Messrs. Dube and Mabuza to the Government and requested it to provide, by 7 February
2025, detailed information about them and to clarify the legal provisions justifying their
continued detention.
3 A/HRC/WG.6/39/SWZ/3, paras. 25 and 26.
4 African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, “Resolution on the situation of human rights in
the Kingdom of Eswatini”.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/55
6
GE.25-15860
42.
On 6 February 2025, the Government requested an extension of the time limit, in
accordance with paragraph 16 of the Working Group’s methods of work. The Working Group
granted an extension until 28 February 2025.
43.
In its response, received on 28 February 2025, the Government stressed that the rights
and freedoms enshrined in international and regional human rights instruments are protected
by the Constitution, which is binding on everyone, including the King. Eswatini has enacted
laws to protect rights and freedoms, including by establishing institutions and providing
safeguards to ensure their operational independence. Media freedom is protected and citizen
participation encouraged. Human right defenders and civil society can carry out their work
without fear of reprisal. The Government states that, while people are not barred from
organizing as political groups, their members can contest elections on an individual basis as
opposed to as party candidates.
44.
The Government argues that key details regarding the backdrop to Mr. Dube’s and
Mr. Mabuza’s arrests were omitted from the source’s submissions.
45.
It claims that, on 5 June 2021, Mr. Mabuza convened a gathering during which he
failed to comply with COVID-19 regulations. He was subsequently charged and convicted
of contravening the Disaster Management Act, 2006, read together with regulation 4 of the
Disaster Management (Coronavirus (COVID-19)) Regulations, 2020.
46.
The Government states that, in June 2021, petitions were delivered to various
constituency centres across the country about improvements to services, reforms in the
appointment of prime ministers and socioeconomic issues. The petitioners persistently failed
to adhere to COVID-19 regulations. They assaulted police officers, blocked roads,
vandalized property and intimidated members of the public, leading the acting Prime Minister
to issue a statement on 24 June 2021 stopping the delivery of petitions. As an alternative, the
Government created an email address to which petitions could be sent.
47.
The Government states that Messrs. Dube and Mabuza held press conferences on 2,
5, 18 and 24 June 2021, during which they advocated for the public to seek constitutional
reforms by taking to the streets, purportedly rejecting advice from other speakers during these
events that reforms should instead be pursued within the constitutional framework.
Moreover, Messrs. Dube and Mabuza called upon the public to disregard the Prime
Minister’s ban and to continue delivering petitions. The following day, unprecedented civil
unrest and violence erupted across the country for several months.
48.
The Government submits that the gist of the terrorism and murder charges against the
two individuals is that, notwithstanding their knowledge of the violence accompanying the
delivery of petitions, they encouraged their delivery despite the ban. It underlines that the
trial court found that they had intention in the form of dolus eventualis.
49.
The Government takes no issue with the source’s allegations regarding the
circumstances of arrest, except with regard to the alleged threats to shoot Mr. Mabuza during
his arrest. Moreover, it specifies that he was arrested in his lawyer’s presence at Ngwane
Park, Manzini, and points out that no complaints about the arrest were raised in court or
reported to the prosecution by Messrs. Dube or Mabuza.
50.
The Government affirms that the bail denials were underpinned by detailed factual
and legal bases and that the court considered that the two men’s release would prejudice the
conduct of the trial.
51.
In relation to the right to be presumed innocent, it submits that section 21 of the
Constitution was fully observed throughout the proceedings. Messrs. Dube and Mabuza were
afforded an opportunity to apply for bail and their case was brought without undue delay
before a court, in accordance with the Constitution. They were never denied legal assistance
or adequate facilities to prepare their defence. They were represented by a team of eight
lawyers and they never raised access to legal assistance and facilities as an issue.
52.
With regard to the source’s arguments on the principle of legality, the Government
asserts that the Supreme Court confirmed the legality of the Suppression of Terrorism Act.
53.
The Government denies that the trial was continuously postponed owing to the King’s
influence. Its length is instead explained by defence counsels’ busy diaries, the calling of
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/55
GE.25-15860
7
more than 50 crown witnesses and the need to play in court and translate into English four
lengthy videos. Moreover, there were instances where trial proceedings were postponed at
the behest of the defence.
54.
The Government denies that the judiciary lacks independence. It highlights that the
judiciary administers its own budget, separate from that of the Ministry of Justice. In
accordance with the Constitution, judges’ remuneration is not subject to annual
appropriation. Section 141 (1) of the Constitution guarantees the administrative autonomy of
the judiciary. The Government denies that the King has ultimate power over the appointment
and removal of superior court judges and describes an appointment process that it states
represents best practice in the Commonwealth. Judges are removed in accordance with the
Constitution and only for serious misbehaviour or inability to perform the function because
of infirmity of body or mind, and subject to due process. In any event, the Government
stresses that the King does not influence the judicial decision-making process, as judges
decide all cases on the facts and the law.
55.
The Government denies that Mr. Mabuza was placed in solitary confinement. It
explains that he was in a block with four other offenders from his admission on 29 July 2021
until he was moved to another block with eight other offenders in July 2023. On 9 December
2021, two mobile telephones were purportedly found in his possession. He was consequently
charged with possession of contraband and lost visitation privileges for 90 days from
10 December to 10 March 2020 following a disciplinary hearing. However, he was still
permitted to receive private meals, make telephone calls and consult with his lawyers.
Mr. Mabuza’s legal consultations were not hindered during his disciplinary action, in order
to allow him to prepare for trial. Between 10 December 2021 and 10 March 2022, his lawyers
conducted 135 visits, with a minimum of two lawyers attending per day.
56.
The claim that officers attacked Messrs. Dube and Mabuza without justification is
incorrect. During a routine search on 22 September 2022, Mr. Mabuza refused to cooperate
and attacked an officer. In response, officers used pepper spray to contain the situation, with
several detainees and officers subsequently having to receive medical attention as a
precaution. The claim that Mr. Mabuza was denied access to a private medical facility is also
false. He was given the option to seek treatment internally but refused. He agreed to a medical
consultation only after receiving advice from his lawyer, without a court order being required.
57.
Mr. Mabuza continued to receive meals, including those provided by his family. Legal
access was not restricted on 22 September 2022 and records indicate that he received two
separate visits from a lawyer on that day.
58.
The Government further states that the correctional facility has one consultation room
serving approximately 1,200 offenders. It is equipped with security cameras to provide visual
monitoring only, but there is no audio recording, a practice aligned with international
standards and commonplace in prisons worldwide.
59.
Mr. Mabuza’s lawyers did not want to wait in the queue of inmates who were using
the consultation room; they demanded preferential treatment, which the Government states
is against the Nelson Mandela Rules and national legislation on equality.
60.
With regard to the incident that took place on 29 September 2023, the Government
explains that in order to maintain security protocols and manage space efficiently, detainees
receiving private meals are given designated mealtimes. That day, Mr. Mabuza’s family
delivered his meals after the designated time slots. He was therefore required to wait until
another detainee had received his meal. Instead of complying, he forcefully entered the meal
area and refused to return to his cell, attacking two officers who were on duty. Mr. Mabuza
was sanctioned and lost his visitation rights as a result, following an internal disciplinary
procedure.
61.
On 30 September 2023, Mr. Mabuza’s lawyer went to visit, but left after waiting for
the consultation room to become available. The Government states that this was not due to
correctional restrictions but rather a result of others exercising their legal consultation rights.
62.
According to the Government, the assertion that legal action was necessary to secure
Mr. Mabuza’s private medical treatment is incorrect. Prison officials engaged Mr. Mabuza’s
lawyers regarding his disregard for correctional rules and advised them to encourage him to
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/55
8
GE.25-15860
comply with internal procedures, including consultation with the facility’s medical team,
which could facilitate private medical appointments where necessary. As a result,
Mr. Mabuza’s private medical appointment was arranged without the need for a court order.
63.
The Government further states that Mr. Dube has never been denied visits or
communication with his family or lawyers. He has been a well-behaved detainee without a
record of disciplinary infractions. Conversely, Mr. Mabuza has been subject to disciplinary
measures due to repeated violations of correctional facility rules, including three instances of
possessing cell phones, two assaults on officers and unauthorized attempts to address
convicted offenders. Consequently, his visitation rights were restricted following due
process, a decision upheld by the Supreme Court under case No. 31/2024.
64.
The Government denies that legal consultations were limited to once per week.
Mr. Mabuza has consistently had access to legal representation, with lawyers visiting him
regularly. Between December 2021 and October 2022, he received 214 legal visits, and
between April and June 2023, he received 19 legal visits.
65.
According to the Government, cell cleanliness is the responsibility of detainees, with
cleaning materials provided by the facility. While the building is old, a maintenance team is
in place to address issues such as leaking roofs and water supply concerns. Renovations are
under way to improve conditions.
66.
Lastly, the Government denies that offenders were stripped naked in the presence of
other inmates or female officers. Correctional regulations explicitly prohibit such actions and
searches are conducted under the supervision of senior officers to ensure compliance.
(c)
Additional comments from the source
67.
In its comments on the Government’s reply, the source emphasizes that its arguments
are focused on the second and third bail application filed by Messrs. Dube and Mabuza,
which presented new facts and circumstances.
68.
With regard to the legality of the Suppression of Terrorism Act and the Sedition and
Subversive Activities Act, the source submits that the Supreme Court judgment referenced
by the Government has been criticized by civil society for its repressive effect. It also submits
that the compatibility of domestic legislation with international obligations must be assessed
independently of internal legal interpretations.
69.
The source points out that the Government has not denied that Mr. Dube’s and
Mr. Mabuza’s speeches did not contain incitement to violence. It also highlights the fact that
violent clashes had already started in May 2021.
70.
Referring to the urgent court applications filed by counsel for Messrs. Dube and
Mabuza, the source maintains that access to legal representation and family contact were
curtailed. It argues that the Government has not demonstrated that it allowed Messrs. Dube
and Mabuza the right to visits and phone calls during the periods identified. It submits that
its version of events concerning the attacks on 22 September 2022 and 29 September 2023
and the ensuing denial of medical care are supported by the urgent applications filed in court
by counsel with supporting affidavits, as well as human rights and media reporting.
71.
The source argues that the King appoints all members of the Judicial Service
Commission and that judicial appointment processes have been consistently opaque and
politically influenced. It evokes specific examples of arbitrary dismissal and demotion of
judges for rulings unfavourable to the Government, including the politically motivated
removals of two justices.
72.
Lastly, the source maintains that the present case is consistent with the Government’s
systematic targeting of reform advocates and the King’s open threats that mercenaries will
deal with those who demand reforms.
2.
Discussion
73.
The Working Group thanks the source and the Government for their submissions.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/55
GE.25-15860
9
74.
In determining whether the deprivation of liberty of Messrs. Dube and Mabuza is
arbitrary, the Working Group has regard to the principles established in its jurisprudence to
deal with evidentiary issues. If the source has established a prima facie case for breach of
international law constituting arbitrary detention, the burden of proof should be understood
to rest upon the Government if it wishes to refute the allegations. Mere assertions by the
Government that lawful procedures have been followed are not sufficient to rebut the
source’s allegations.5
(a)
Category I
75.
The source contends that the denial of bail for Messrs. Dube and Mabuza by the High
Court and the Supreme Court does not qualify as an individualized re-examination of their
pretrial detention, despite the changes in circumstances after the first bail application. The
Government argued in response that the judgments rejecting bail were reasoned,
individualized and based on the law.
76.
The Working Group recalls that, according to article 9 (3) of the Covenant, it must
not be the general rule that persons awaiting trial are detained in custody. Pretrial detention
must be based on an individualized determination that it is reasonable and necessary taking
into account all the circumstances, for such purposes as to prevent flight, interference with
evidence or the recurrence of crime. Moreover, after an initial determination has been made
that pretrial detention is necessary, there should be periodic re-examination of whether it
continues to be reasonable and necessary in the light of possible alternatives.6 The decision
to keep a person in any form of detention is arbitrary if it is not subject to periodic
re-evaluation of the justification for continuing the detention.7
77.
The reasons furnished for the denial of the first bail application by Messrs. Dube and
Mabuza was that they were a flight risk and likely to interfere with witnesses. However, the
two subsequent bail applications – which the source argues are problematic – contain no
individualized assessment for the necessity of the continued detention. The Working Group
notes that in its judgments, the High Court dismissed both applications on jurisdictional
grounds without examining their merits, holding that the court was functus officio and the
matter was res judicata. Those facts are uncontested. The Working Group finds, as a result,
that the relevant authorities failed to conduct a periodic re-evaluation of the justification for
continuing the detention of the two individuals, as is required by article 9 (3) of the Covenant.
78.
Turning to the source’s arguments concerning the vagueness of the laws under which
the two individuals were arrested, the Working Group notes that the Suppression of Terrorism
Act, 2008, criminalizes any act or threat of action which causes the overthrow, by force or
violence, of the Government, involves serious damage to property, endangers the life of a
person, creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public, or involves prejudice to
national security or public safety. The Sedition and Subversive Activities Act, 1938,
sanctions anyone who intentionally brings into hatred or contempt or excites disaffection
against the King or the Government, excites others to attempt to procure the alteration,
otherwise than by lawful means, of any matter in the country as established by law, and raises
discontent or disaffection.
79.
The Working Group notes that concerns over those two statutes are long-standing. At
its universal periodic review in 2022, Eswatini received multiple recommendations to amend
those laws to bring them into line with human rights standards.8 The same year, several
special procedure mandate holders, including the Working Group, expressed concern about
those two laws.9 In 2017, the Human Rights Committee had noted that counter-terrorism and
5 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.
6 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 38.
7 Ibid., para. 12.
8 A/HRC/49/14, paras. 118.103, 118.106, 118.109, 118.113, 118.216 and 118.220.
9 See communication SWZ 2/2022, available from
https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/Tmsearch/TMDocuments.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/55
10
GE.25-15860
national security legislation in Eswatini had been used to counter political opposition and
social protests instead of addressing legitimate terrorism threats.10
80.
The Working Group recalls that vaguely and broadly worded provisions violate the
principle of legality and may have a deterrent effect on the exercise of several fundamental
rights, equality and non-discrimination, and the protection of persons belonging to ethnic,
religious or linguistic minorities.11 The principle of legality requires laws to be formulated
with sufficient precision so that the individual can access and understand the law and regulate
his or her conduct accordingly. Arrest and detention must rest on substantive grounds
prescribed by law and defined with sufficient precision to avoid overly broad or arbitrary
interpretation or application.12 Moreover, detention pursuant to a law that is inconsistent with
international human rights law lacks a legal basis and is therefore arbitrary.13
81.
In this context, the Working Group finds that detention under the provisions in
section 4 of the Sedition and Subversive Activities Act, 1938, which punishes anyone who
intentionally brings into hatred or contempt or excites disaffection against the King or the
Government, violates international human rights law. Similarly, the terms used in section
5 (1) of the Suppression of Terrorism Act, 2008, read with the corresponding definitions in
section 2, are excessively broad and lack the specificity necessary to guide conduct.
82.
In the Working Group’s view, these ill-defined provisions enable the unjustified
criminalization of the legitimate exercise of freedom of expression and other conduct.14 They
are thus incompatible with article 11 (2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
article 15 (1) of the Covenant. As a result, the Working Group considers that these legal
provisions are so vague that it is impossible to invoke them as a legal basis for Mr. Dube’s
and Mr. Mabuza’s detention.15
83.
With regard to the Government’s position that the Supreme Court confirmed the
legality of those two laws, the Working Group recalls that even when a detention is carried
out in conformity with national legislation, the Working Group must ensure that the detention
is also consistent with the relevant provisions of international law, which as shown above, is
not the case here.16
84.
Lastly, with regard to the murder charges against Messrs. Dube and Mabuza, the
Working Group considers those charges to be pretextual given its findings above. This is
particularly so in the light of the fact that the Government has not contested the source’s
submission that neither of the men were even present at the time of the event in question, or
provided any information showing that their acts or words caused the deaths in question or
that they had incited their followers to violence.
85.
For these reasons, the Working Group considers that the deprivation of liberty of
Messrs. Dube and Mabuza lacks a legal basis and is thus arbitrary within the meaning of
category I.
(b)
Category II
86.
The source argues that Messrs. Dube and Mabuza were arrested, detained and
convicted for the content of their political speeches, in violation of their rights to freedom of
expression and of opinion, their right to take part in the conduct of public affairs and their
rights to freedom of association and of assembly.
87.
The Government responded, notably, that Messrs. Dube and Mabuza called upon the
public to disregard the Prime Minister’s ban and to seek reform by taking to the streets. The
Government appears to imply, without explicitly saying so or offering any information to
10 CCPR/C/SWZ/CO/1, paras. 36 and 37.
11 Opinion No. 10/2018, paras. 52 and 55.
12 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 22.
13 Opinions No. 14/2017, para. 49; No. 43/2017, para. 34; No. 40/2018, para. 45; and No. 69/2018,
para. 21.
14 Opinion No. 20/2017, para. 35.
15 Opinion No. 52/2024, paras. 77–80.
16 Opinion No. 8/2023, para. 64.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/55
GE.25-15860
11
that end, that the civil unrest erupting the following day in the country may have been the
result of those press conferences. In its additional comments, in contrast, the source points
out that violent clashes had already started in May 2021.
88.
The Working Group notes that, under article 19 (2) of the Covenant, everyone has the
right to freedom of expression, which includes political discourse, commentary on public
affairs and discussion of human rights.17 The right to freedom of expression also includes the
right of individuals to criticize or openly and publicly evaluate their Governments without
fear of interference or punishment.18 The Human Rights Committee has emphasized that
public order and national security may never be invoked as a justification for the muzzling
of any advocacy of multiparty democracy, democratic tenets and human rights.19 Extreme
care must be taken by States to ensure that provisions relating to national security, whether
described as official secrets or sedition laws or otherwise, are crafted and applied in a manner
that conforms to the strict requirements of article 19 (3) of the Covenant. It is not compatible
with that provision to invoke such laws to suppress or to withhold from the public information
of legitimate public interest that does not harm national security or to prosecute human rights
defenders or others for having disseminated such information.20
89.
Moreover, given that peaceful assemblies often have expressive functions and that
political speech enjoys particular protection as a form of expression, it follows that
assemblies with a political message should enjoy a heightened level of accommodation and
protection.21 Furthermore, article 25 of the Covenant recognizes and protects the right of all
citizens to take part in the conduct of public affairs and to exert influence through public
debate and dialogue or through their capacity to organize themselves.22
90.
While articles 19 (3), 21 and 22 (2) of the Covenant allow restrictions on the right to
freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association, the Working Group recalls that
such restrictions must not be used to stifle the expression of political opposition, challenges
to authority, including calls for democratic changes, or human rights advocacy.23
91.
The Working Group notes that, although the Government has suggested that
Messrs. Dube and Mabuza had knowledge of the violence accompanying the delivery of
petitions and called for the public to take to the streets to call for reform, it is noteworthy that
it does not actually allege that their speeches contained incitement to violence. The Working
Group recalls that isolated acts of violence by some participants in an assembly should not
be attributed to others, to the organizers or to the assembly as such, and collective civil
disobedience can be covered by article 21 of the Covenant, provided that it is non-violent.24
In the present case, the Government has provided no information allowing the Working
Group to conclude that Messrs. Dube and Mabuza incited their supporters to violence or that
their conduct fell within any of the exceptions stipulated in the Covenant. The source’s
submission that unrest had already begun in May 2021 is also relevant in this regard.
92.
The Working Group accordingly concludes that the conduct of Messrs. Dube and
Mabuza fell within their exercise of the rights to freedom of expression, of assembly and of
association and the right to take part in the conduct of public affairs, under articles 19, 20 and
21 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 19, 21, 22 and 25 of the
Covenant, and that they were arrested, detained and convicted for exercising those rights.
Their deprivation of liberty is therefore arbitrary under category II.
17 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 34 (2011), para. 11; and opinions No. 79/2017,
para. 55; and No. 22/2024, para. 78.
18 Marques de Morais v. Angola (CCPR/C/83/D/1128/2002), para. 6.7.
19 General comment No. 34 (2011), para. 23.
20 Ibid., para. 30.
21 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 37 (2020), para. 32.
22 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 25 (1996), paras. 1 and 8.
23 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 37 (2020), para. 49.
24 Ibid., paras. 16 and 17.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/55
12
GE.25-15860
(c)
Category III
93.
Given its finding that the detention of Messrs. Dube and Mabuza is arbitrary under
category II, the Working Group emphasizes that no trial should have taken place.
Nevertheless, as one did take place and they were convicted, the Working Group will
examine the submissions concerning the denial of their fair trial rights.
94.
The source claims a number of violations of the right to legal assistance and adequate
facilities for the preparation of a defence. This includes Messrs. Dube and Mabuza’s defence
lawyers on multiple occasions facing delayed access or being denied access to their clients
altogether, and several instances of harassment and intimidation due to their professional
activities, culminating most egregiously in the murder of one of the lawyers.
95.
In denying those allegations, the Government points to a team of lawyers defending
the two individuals and lists a significant number of legal consultations held by Mr. Mabuza’s
lawyer in the correctional facility during various periods. The Government otherwise appears
to lay the blame on defence counsel for refusing to accommodate the limited availability the
one consultation room in the correctional facility offered to all 1,200 detainees.
96.
The Working Group underlines that legal representation is a core guarantee of the
right to a fair trial. Denial of access to a lawyer substantially undermines and compromises
the capacity to defend oneself from accusations in any judicial proceedings, potentially
enabling further fair trial violations. Moreover, all persons deprived of their liberty have the
right to legal assistance by counsel of their choice at any time during their detention,
including immediately after their apprehension, and such access must be provided without
delay.25
97.
With regard to the number of visits from defence counsel to Messrs. Dube and
Mabuza, the Working Group considers that the quality of the interaction between a detainee
and their lawyer overrides the number of such interactions. In this case, however, the
Working Group finds it concerning that only one consultation room was available to all 1,200
detainees in the correctional facility, such that waiting times for meetings between counsel
and their clients appear to have occurred frequently and on occasion for hours at a time.
98.
While the Government argues that this illustrates the equality with which all detainees
are treated, in accordance with the Nelson Mandela Rules, the Working Group considers it
instead to be indicative of a failure by the authorities to ensure that accused are allowed
adequate time and facilities for the preparation of their defence and to communicate with
counsel. It notes that defence counsel filed urgent applications in court, supported by
affidavits, stating they had been denied access to their clients on at least two occasions.
99.
The Working Group is troubled by serious allegations of harassment, intimidation and
deadly violence against the lawyers retained to represent Messrs. Dube and Mabuza. It notes
that the right to communicate with counsel also requires that lawyers are able to represent
their clients without restrictions, influence, pressure or interference.26 Impeded access to legal
representation may therefore take the form of the intimidation of lawyers in their professional
activities, which appears to have been the case here. Such acts against lawyers are entirely
unacceptable and violate articles 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant.27 Lawyers must be able to carry out their functions
effectively and independently, free from fear of reprisal, interference, intimidation, hindrance
or harassment.28 The Working Group recalls that it is the duty of the State to protect everyone
25 A/HRC/45/16, paras. 51 and 52; A/HRC/30/37, annex, principle 9 and guideline 8; Basic Principles
on the Role of Lawyers, paras. 16–22; Opinion No. 76/2021, para. 58; Body of Principles for the
Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, principle 18 (3); and the
Nelson Mandela Rules, rule 61 (1).
26 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32 (2007), para. 34.
27 Opinions No. 42/ 2020, No. 66/2019, No. 28/2018, No. 70/2017, No. 36/2017, No. 34/2017,
No. 32/2017, No. 29/2017 and No. 14/2017. See also A/HRC/45/16, para. 54.
28 See also the Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, paras. 16–22.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/55
GE.25-15860
13
on its territory or under its jurisdiction against any human rights violation and to provide
reparation whenever a violation occurs.29
100.
While the Government dismisses the allegations of intimidation of lawyers as
unsubstantiated, it does acknowledge one instance of a lawyer being followed and an attempt
made on his life. The Working Group is not persuaded by the Government’s submissions,
particularly as one of the lawyers, who was found in 2015 to be arbitrarily detained by the
Working Group for his human rights activism and had previously represented Messrs. Dube
and Mabuza, was murdered during the proceedings.30 For these reasons, the Working Group
finds that Mr. Dube’s and Mr. Mabuza’s rights under article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant have
been violated.
101.
The source alleges that Messrs. Dube and Mabuza were attacked by prison guards on
22 September 2022 and that Mr. Mabuza was attacked a second time on 29 September 2023.
As is clear from the summary of submissions above, the accounts of these events diverge
significantly. Moreover, while the Government argues that court orders were not required
either time to obtain medical care for the injuries sustained, it does not refute the allegation
that court action was nonetheless initiated by defence counsel for the purposes of forcing
medical attention.
102.
The Working Group underlines that detainees should be protected from any practices
that violate their right to be free from any act that could cause severe pain or suffering,
whether physical or mental, and that are inflicted intentionally. In accordance with article 2
of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment, the right to freedom from torture and other ill-treatment or punishment is
absolute and non-derogable.31
103.
In support of its additional comments to the Government response, the source
submitted to the Working Group a copy of the two court applications made by counsel for
Messrs. Dube and Mabuza, accompanied by affidavits, following the attacks of 22 September
2022 and 29 September 2023. The Government, aside from recounting its own version of
events, has not put forth the results of any investigation or documentation to corroborate its
version and refute that of the source. As a result, the Working Group is inclined to accept the
source’s account that the two men sustained significant injuries after being attacked by prison
guards.
104.
The Working Group also accepts the source’s version that medical attention for the
two individuals was not given freely and routinely, as it should be, as supported by the two
court applications. The Working Group underlines that every detainee has the right to the
highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.32 Prisoners whose health conditions
require treatment by a specialist should be transferred to specialized institutions or to civil
hospitals. Moreover, the denial of medical care can constitute a form of torture and cruel and
inhuman treatment.33 On the basis of the urgent court applications filed by counsel following
the attacks, the Working Group finds that medical care was not made available by the
authorities to Messrs. Dube and Mabuza which, combined with the injuries sustained, would
have undermined their ability to adequately prepare their defence.
105.
With regard to the allegation that Mr. Mabuza was placed in prolonged solitary
confinement, the Government insists that Mr. Mabuza’s disciplinary sanction was limited to
loss of visitation rights and not solitary confinement. The source limits itself to media reports
to substantiate its claim on this point. As a result, the Working Group finds that it lacks
sufficient information and is unable to reach a conclusion on whether Mr. Mabuza was placed
29 See Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, deliberation No. 10 (A/HRC/45/16, annex I).
30 Opinion No. 6/2015.
31 Committee against Torture, general comment No. 2 (2007), paras. 3, 5 and 6; Nelson Mandela Rules,
rule 1; Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or
Imprisonment, principle 6; and opinion No. 2018/12, para. 64.
32 Opinion No. 42/2021, para. 78. See also Nelson Mandela Rules, rule 24; and A/HRC/38/36,
paras. 21–45
33 A/HRC/38/36, para. 18; and opinion No. 20/2022, para. 104.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/55
14
GE.25-15860
in solitary confinement. However, the Working Group considers that, even if it were to accept
the Government’s submission that the period in question was from 10 December 2021 to
10 March 2022, rather than until 10 May 2022 as alleged by the source, a period exceeding
15 days would nonetheless be considered prolonged solitary confinement if no meaningful
human contact were allowed for 22 hours or more a day and, as such, be prohibited under
rules 43 and 44 of the Nelson Mandela Rules.
106.
The source submits that Messrs. Dube and Mabuza were denied a fair trial because
the Eswatini judiciary lacks independence. It points to the King’s ultimate authority over
appointments and removals of judges and his influence over the judicial process, as well as
the opacity of that process, and specific instances of arbitrary removal of judges. The
Government’s response outlines constitutional, structural, administrative and financial
measures which, it argues, safeguard judicial independence.
107.
The Working Group reiterates that the right to be tried by a competent, independent
and impartial tribunal, which is protected under article 10 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and article 14 of the Covenant, is an absolute right and that is not subject to
any exception.34 In the present case, on the facts as presented, the Working Group is not
satisfied that the source has provided sufficient information to allow a finding on the lack of
independence of the judiciary in Eswatini and the impartiality of the courts that tried
Messrs. Dube and Mabuza.
108.
With regard to the source’s allegation of lengthy proceedings, the Working Group
notes that the two men were tried and convicted within three years of their arrest, as well as
the Government’s explanations for this, including the busy schedule of defence counsel, the
number of prosecution witnesses and requests for postponement from the defence.
109.
The Working Group recalls that article 14 (3) (c) of the Covenant states that any
individual has the right to be tried without undue delay. This provision complements
article 9 (3), which requires an individual to be brought promptly before a judge and tried
within a reasonable time frame. What is considered a reasonable time depends on the
individual circumstances of the case, including its complexity, the conduct of the accused,
and the manner in which the authorities dealt with the matter.35
110.
The Working Group believes that the period taken to conclude Messrs. Dube and
Mabuza’s trial, given the explanation provided by the Government, is not unreasonable.
Adjournments at the request of the detainee which accord with article 14 (3) (b) of the
Covenant guaranteeing the right to “adequate time and facilities” for the preparation of the
defence are not necessarily inconsistent with the right to be tried without undue delay.
111.
The source refers to the various due process violations discussed above to argue that
Mr. Dube’s and Mr. Mabuza’s right to presumption of innocence was violated. The Working
Group recalls that under articles 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
14 (2) of the Covenant, everyone has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty.
This requires that to establish the guilt of the accused, the burden of proof lies with the
prosecutor and public authorities must refrain from prejudging the outcome of the
proceedings, making any official statements or using conclusive language that would portray
an accused person as guilty.
112.
In the present case, although the source has referred to some aspects of the arrest and
detention which did not accord with international human rights law, it has not presented
sufficient evidence to show that, through the conduct of the court, the presumption of
innocence was undermined.
113.
In the light of all of the above, the Working Group is nevertheless able to conclude
that the fair trial violations in the present case, namely the harassment and intimidation of
lawyers and the limited consultation facilities afforded in the correctional facility for the
preparation of the defence, were of sufficient gravity to render Messrs. Dube and Mabuza’s
detention arbitrary under category III.
34 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32 (2007), para. 19.
35 Ibid., para. 35.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/55
GE.25-15860
15
(d)
Category V
114.
The source argues that Mr. Dube’s and Mr. Mabuza’s political opinions are central to
the present case as the two were targeted by the authorities for their political opinion and pro-
democracy activism. It contextualizes this case against the backdrop of systematic repression
in the country and the protests that erupted in May 2021. The Government denies those claims
and states that it is committed to equality, as enshrined in the Constitution and the treaties
ratified by Eswatini.
115.
The Working Group takes into account a number of non-cumulative factors in order
to determine whether a deprivation of liberty is discriminatory, including: (a) whether the
deprivation of liberty is part of a pattern of persecution against the detained person;
(b) whether other persons with similarly distinguishing characteristics have also been
persecuted; or (c) whether the context suggests that the authorities have detained a person on
discriminatory grounds or to prevent them from exercising their human rights.36
116.
On the basis of the information before it, the Working Group considers that
Messrs. Dube and Mabuza were targeted because of their political activities, which included
their calls for reform. The Working Group has already concluded that the detention of the
two individuals resulted from the peaceful exercise of their rights. When a detention results
from the active exercise of civil and political rights, there is a strong presumption that the
detention also constitutes a violation of international law on the grounds of discrimination.37
The Working Group also notes that the Human Rights Committee has previously expressed
its concern at reports of attacks on journalists, political opponents, human rights defenders
and trade unionists in Eswatini.38
117.
The Working Group thus finds that Mr. Dube and Mr. Mabuza were deprived of their
liberty on discriminatory grounds for their political opinions, in violation of articles 2 and 7
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 2 (1) and 26 of the Covenant.
Their detention is arbitrary under category V.
3.
Disposition
118.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of Mthandeni Dube and Mduduzi Bacede Mabuza, being in
contravention of articles 2, 7, 9, 10, 11, 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and articles 2, 9, 14, 19, 21, 22, 25 and 26 of the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights, is arbitrary and falls within categories I, II, III and V.
119.
The Working Group requests the Government of Eswatini to take the steps necessary
to remedy the situation of Messrs. Dube and Mabuza without delay and bring it into
conformity with the relevant international norms, including those set out in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
120.
The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, the appropriate remedy would be to release Messrs. Dube and Mabuza immediately and
accord them an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with
international law.
121.
The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent
investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of
Messrs. Dube and Mabuza and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the
violation of their rights.
122.
The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion
through all available means and as widely as possible.
36 Opinion No. 58/2023, para. 73.
37 Opinions No. 75/2022, para. 91; and No. 61/2024, para. 66.
38 CCPR/C/SWZ/CO/1, para. 44.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/55
16
GE.25-15860
4.
Follow-up procedure
123.
In accordance with paragraph 20 of its methods of work, the Working Group requests
the source and the Government to provide it with information on action taken in follow-up
to the recommendations made in the present opinion, including:
(a)
Whether Messrs. Dube and Mabuza have been released and, if so, on what
date;
(b)
Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to Messrs. Dube
and Mabuza;
(c)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of Mr. Dube’s
and Mr. Mabuza’s rights and, if so, the outcome of the investigation;
(d)
Whether any legislative amendments or changes in practice have been made to
harmonize the laws and practices of Eswatini with its international obligations in line with
the present opinion;
(e)
Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion.
124.
The Government is invited to inform the Working Group of any difficulties it may
have encountered in implementing the recommendations made in the present opinion and
whether further technical assistance is required, for example through a visit by the Working
Group.
125.
The Working Group requests the source and the Government to provide the
above-mentioned information within six months of the date of transmission of the present
opinion. However, the Working Group reserves the right to take its own action in follow-up
to the opinion if new concerns in relation to the case are brought to its attention. Such action
would enable the Working Group to inform the Human Rights Council of progress made in
implementing its recommendations, as well as of any failure to take action.
126.
The Working Group recalls that the Human Rights Council has encouraged all States
to cooperate with the Working Group and has requested them to take account of its views
and, where necessary, to take appropriate steps to remedy the situation of persons arbitrarily
deprived of their liberty, and to inform the Working Group of the steps they have taken.39
[Adopted on 28 August 2025]
39 Human Rights Council resolution 51/8, paras. 6 and 9.