Eswatini Bank Founder Files $9.8M Defamation Suit, Raising Press Freedom Concerns

MBABANE, Eswatini – A legal battle unfolding in the tiny African kingdom of Eswatini is sparking alarm among press freedom advocates, who say a nearly $10 million defamation lawsuit is a blatant attempt to silence critical journalism. John Asfar, the founding director of Farmers Bank, has filed the suit against Swazi Bridge, a news outlet operating in exile, alleging damaging falsehoods regarding the bank’s licensing process.

The lawsuit, filed in the Eswatini capital of Mbabane, centers on a series of articles published by Swazi Bridge between 2023 and 2025. Asfar and Farmers Bank claim the reporting contained “absolutely no evidence” and failed to provide them an opportunity to respond to the allegations. The articles detailed a licensing dispute and raised questions about the bank’s acquisition, echoing concerns previously highlighted in the Swazi Secrets investigation, a collaborative effort led by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ).

A Bank Built on Controversy

Farmers Bank’s journey to establishment has been anything but smooth. The bank faced significant hurdles in securing its license, with reports suggesting political interference aimed at influencing the Central Bank of Eswatini. The Swazi Bridge reporting delved into these issues, revealing concerns within the central bank about the ultimate control and funding sources of the new venture. Asfar, a former real estate developer and once the owner of the Canadian hotel chain Travellers Inn – which declared bankruptcy in 2009 – has found himself at the heart of this controversy.

The timing of the lawsuit is particularly sensitive, coming less than two months after the initial filing. According to court records, Asfar’s legal team proposed a settlement that went far beyond a simple retraction and monetary compensation. They demanded complete ownership of Swazi Bridge, effectively silencing the outlet. A stark warning accompanied the offer: failure to comply would result in an injunction, “punitive relief,” and even a threat to investigate the outlet for “domestic and/or foreign terrorism,” citing the banking sector as a matter of “national security.”

From Settlement Demands to Accusations of ‘Terrorism’

Swazi Bridge’s response was resolute. The outlet’s lawyers firmly rejected the settlement terms, stating unequivocally that the publication was “not for sale” and would not relinquish its editorial independence. Manqoba Nxumalo, the editor of Swazi Bridge, told ICIJ that Asfar was targeting the outlet precisely because of its limited resources, making it a less formidable opponent in a protracted legal battle. He characterized the lawsuit as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) – a tactic used to intimidate and silence critics through costly litigation.

This isn’t the first time Asfar has attempted to stifle critical reporting. During the Swazi Secrets investigation, he accused ICIJ of “financial terrorism” and threatened legal action. His recent response to ICIJ’s inquiries about the lawsuit against Swazi Bridge was a 2,000-word letter alleging a “false narrative” and blaming the organization for being part of a shadowy “Masonic plot” to establish an international government. He further accused Swazi Bridge of simply repeating “lies from other rogue activist publications” without conducting proper fact-checking.

A Pattern of Intimidation and a Threat to Press Freedom

The case has drawn condemnation from regional press freedom organizations. The Southern Africa Litigation Centre and the Media Institute of Southern Africa issued a joint statement, labeling the legal action as a clear SLAPP suit targeting speech on a matter of public interest. They emphasized the need to strengthen legal frameworks and foster a culture of responsibility to protect meaningful public discourse.

The use of SLAPP suits is a growing concern globally. According to a Reuters report from November 2023, these types of lawsuits have been increasing in frequency, particularly against journalists and activists. The report highlights that these suits aren’t necessarily about winning in court, but rather about exhausting the resources of the defendant and deterring others from speaking out. In fact, a 2023 UNESCO report found that **over 70% of journalists globally have experienced threats to their safety, including legal harassment.**

The situation in Eswatini underscores the fragility of press freedom, particularly in countries with limited democratic space. The government’s response – or lack thereof – to Asfar’s aggressive tactics will be closely watched by international observers. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for investigative journalism and public accountability in Eswatini and beyond, setting a dangerous precedent for those seeking to silence dissenting voices.

Asfar’s actions raise serious questions about the intersection of financial interests, political influence, and the fundamental right to freedom of expression. The world is watching to see if the courts in Eswatini will uphold the principles of justice and protect the vital role of a free press.