BY MBONGENI NDLELA
MBABANE – If circulating reports that former Ngwempisi Member of Parliament Mthandeni Dube has left Eswatini without authorisation are eventually confirmed, then he may have transformed an act of royal mercy into a fresh and potentially more complicated legal battle.
Dube was not an entirely free man when he walked out of the Matsapha Correctional Facility on November 5, 2025. He remained an inmate serving the balance of his sentence outside prison under the supervision of His Majesty’s Correctional Services (HMCS).
His release was not an acquittal.
Neither did it erase his conviction or bring his sentence to an end. It was a conditional release made possible through the King and Ingwenyama’s Special Royal Pardon of 2025.
The pardon gave Dube an opportunity many long-serving inmates can only dream about: to return to his family, reintegrate into society and serve the remainder of his sentence through community corrections.
He was reportedly assigned to perform community service at his homearea. This placed him in an environment where his labour could contribute to public service while he rebuilt his life outside the prison walls.
That opportunity came with clearly stated conditions.
Dube was required to remain under periodic HMCS supervision, reside at an approved address and obtain permission before changing his place of residence. He was required to obey reasonable instructions from Correctional Services and remain within Eswatini unless the Commissioner General authorised him to travel.
He was also required to surrender his passport or any other international travel document and was prohibited from applying for a new one. His conditions further barred him from political activities, media engagements, social-media participation, public presentations and certain social gatherings for the remainder of his sentence.
Most importantly, the conditions warned that any breach could result in the forfeiture of the conditional release and his return to custody to complete the remainder of his sentence. These conditions were publicly outlined when HMCS announced the release of Dube and 11 other inmates.
AUDIO TRIGGERS INVESTIGATION
The latest controversy began after an audio recording attributed to Dube was published by Swaziland News. In the recording, the speaker allegedly made statements concerning the late Chief Justice Bheki Maphalala and the circumstances surrounding Dube’s prosecution.
HMCS has correctly resisted the temptation to pronounce Dube guilty merely because an audio recording is circulating online.
Instead, HMCS Public Relations Officer Baphelele Kunene announced that the institution had established an enquiry team to determine whether the voice was Dube’s, establish the circumstances surrounding the recording and decide whether any condition of his release had been breached.
That is how a responsible public institution should proceed.
Even when public emotions are running high, decisions carrying serious consequences must be founded on credible and verifiable evidence.
However, matters became more serious when the HMCS enquiry team reportedly visited Dube’s Ngwempisi homestead and failed to find him. Relatives reportedly informed the officers that he had left several days earlier for an unknown destination.
His attorney, Sandile Motsa, was quoted as saying that he had not communicated with Dube for some time and regarded reports surrounding his whereabouts as hearsay.
Swaziland News subsequently reported that Dube had crossed into South Africa. At present, however, no publicly available statement from HMCS, the Royal Eswatini Police Service, South African authorities or Dube himself independently confirms his location.
It is therefore premature to declare as an established fact that Dube ‘escaped’. What is established is that investigators did not find him at his registered residence and that his whereabouts were unknown when they visited.
If it is confirmed that he crossed an international border without written permission, that would appear to constitute a direct breach of one of the clearest conditions of his release.
SHOOTING HIMSELF IN THE FOOT
Dube may have believed that leaving Eswatini would place him beyond the reach of HMCS. In reality, an unauthorised departure could worsen his position.
The alleged media interview concerned one possible violation. Leaving his designated residence without approval could constitute another. Crossing the border without permission could add an even more serious breach.
A person who has received mercy strengthens his position by respecting its conditions. A person who disappears when questions arise risks creating the impression that he is unwilling to account for his conduct.
Dube had the right to dispute the authenticity of the recording, challenge the interpretation placed upon it and seek legal representation during the HMCS investigation. He could also have approached the courts if he believed any of his conditions were unconstitutional or had been unfairly applied.
Disappearing, if that is what happened, does not answer the allegations. It merely opens another front.
INTERPOL IS POSSIBLE—BUT NOT AUTOMATIC
Should HMCS revoke the conditional release and the appropriate Eswatini authority obtain a valid warrant or court order, Eswatini could seek international law-enforcement cooperation.
That could include requesting an INTERPOL Red Notice or diffusion to locate Dube and seek his provisional arrest pending extradition. However, INTERPOL, not HMCS, decides whether a request satisfies its rules.
A Red Notice is not an international arrest warrant. It is an alert asking police in member countries to locate and provisionally arrest a wanted person, subject to the laws of the country where that person is found. INTERPOL also requires notices to relate to serious ordinary-law crimes and prohibits the organisation from becoming involved in matters that are predominantly political.
Therefore, it cannot responsibly be claimed that Dube will automatically be placed on INTERPOL. Eswatini would first need an appropriate domestic legal basis and INTERPOL would independently assess any request.
South Africa and Eswatini nevertheless have established extradition arrangements. Their cooperation is supported by the bilateral extradition treaty of October 4, 1968 and the SADC Protocol on Extradition. An extradition request would still be subjected to South African law, judicial procedures and applicable human-rights protections.
ASYLUM IS NOT AUTOMATIC PROTECTION
Dube may apply for asylum if he is in South Africa, but lodging an application is not the same as being granted refugee status.
Under Section 3 of South Africa’s Refugees Act, an applicant generally has to establish:
- A well-founded fear of persecution because of race, tribe, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group;
- That circumstances compelled the person to leave because of external aggression, occupation, foreign domination or events seriously disturbing public order; or
- That the person qualifies as a dependant of someone recognised as a refugee.
The applicant must make a truthful application, present the relevant facts and satisfy South African authorities that the fear of persecution is genuine and legally recognised. Economic hardship, a desire to avoid lawful supervision or the mere existence of an outstanding sentence does not by itself establish a valid asylum claim.
South African law also excludes certain people from refugee protection, including persons implicated in crimes against peace, war crimes, crimes against humanity, serious non-political crimes committed outside South Africa before admission, or acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations or African Union.
However, it would be legally incorrect to say Dube cannot receive asylum simply because HMCS continues to classify him as an inmate. A conviction does not automatically extinguish the right to apply. South African authorities would have to examine the nature of his convictions, his conduct, the evidence of alleged political persecution, possible statutory exclusions and any extradition proceedings.
Dube and international human-rights organisations have previously characterised his prosecution as politically motivated. Amnesty International designated Dube and Mduduzi Bacede Mabuza prisoners of conscience and criticised the restrictions imposed upon Dube’s release. Those claims could form part of an asylum case and would have to be weighed by the South African authorities.
Thus, asylum is neither guaranteed nor impossible. It is a legal process, not a hiding place and not an automatic shield against extradition.
REGIONAL SECURITY COOPERATION
This matter also arises at a significant moment for Eswatini’s regional responsibilities.
His Majesty King Mswati III is the Chairperson of the SADC Organ on Politics, Defence and Security Cooperation, not the ‘SADC Security Council’, as it is sometimes incorrectly called.
The Organ coordinates regional cooperation on peace, political stability, defence, policing and security. His Majesty assumed its chairmanship following the 46th SADC Summit in August 2026.
The King’s position does not empower him personally to order Dube’s arrest in another country or bypass South African law. It does, however, place Eswatini at the centre of regional security cooperation and reinforces the importance of lawful communication between regional authorities.
MERCY REQUIRES RESPONSIBILITY
Dube was given a rare second chance.
The Special Royal Pardon allowed him to leave a correctional cell, return to his community and demonstrate that rehabilitation was possible. The sensible response was to honour every condition, complete his community service and use lawful channels to challenge any restriction he considered unjust.
If he instead left the country without approval, he may have shot himself in the foot.
HMCS must now complete its investigation fairly and establish the authenticity of the audio, Dube’s current location and whether he crossed the border. Dube must also be given an opportunity to respond through his lawyer.
No institution should convict him through headlines. Equally, no beneficiary of a conditional pardon should treat royal mercy as a licence to disregard the conditions that made his release possible.
Freedom granted under conditions remains tied to responsibility. Running from accountability cannot convert conditional liberty into permanent freedom.
