Textile investors have accused Labour and Social Security Minister Phila Buthelezi of pursuing anti-competitive practices through his visits to factories over alleged labour abuses.
The minister’s visits have triggered a backlash within the sector, with companies warning that public scrutiny based on unproven claims risks driving away international buyers.
The minister is expected to continue a series of inspections this week, following his first visit to Artic Fox last week, which he has described as a necessary intervention to protect workers’ rights in a sector long dogged by complaints over wages and conditions.
During the visit, Buthelezi engaged both management and workers over complaints including delayed wages, unpaid overtime and alleged unlawful lay-offs.
Investors, however, argue that the manner in which the visits are being conducted, particularly the presence of the media and the rapid circulation of coverage, is undermining their competitiveness in global markets.
According to them, the minister’s actions amount to anti-competitive conduct, as publicly singling out specific firms in a highly competitive, export-driven industry may inadvertently distort market dynamics.
Industry players, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal from the ministry, said footage and reports from the minister’s visits, including social media videos circulated by local media houses, are being weaponised by rival firms to discredit targeted companies in the eyes of international buyers.
According to the investors, competing suppliers are allegedly forwarding such material to clients abroad as evidence that certain local factories were engaged in labour violations, even though the allegations have not been substantiated.
“This is becoming trial by media and it is very unfair. Once a video is out there showing a minister confronting a company over ‘alleged abuses’, buyers do not wait for investigations. They simply move orders elsewhere,” said one investor.
The textile sector, heavily dependent on export markets, operates within tightly contested global supply chains where reputational risk can have immediate commercial consequences, they added, warning that even the perception of non-compliance with labour standards, regardless of whether claims are proven, can lead to cancelled contracts and long-term damage to relationships with buyers.
On that basis, investors are now questioning not only the approach taken, but also the criteria used to select which firms are targeted.
“If there are genuine concerns, then follow the law. There are established procedures for inspections and enforcement. What we are seeing now appears selective and, frankly, performative,” said another investor.
They argued that labour inspections should be conducted through formal regulatory processes, with findings only made public once investigations are complete and evidence has been established.
Instead, they say, the current approach risks conflating allegations with guilt.
“What we would like clarified is whether the minister’s actions fall outside established legal frameworks governing labour inspections,” they said.
They contend that while the ministry of labour has broad powers to investigate workplace conditions, there is no provision for what they describe as “impromptu, media-accompanied interventions” that place companies under public scrutiny before due process is followed.
Some went further, questioning whether companies would be within their rights to deny access to such visits.
“What would happen if a company simply refused entry? There is no clarity in law that allows for random inspections conducted in this manner, especially when they are potentially damaging to business.”
The concern, they say, is not with oversight itself, but with how it is exercised.
“No one is saying there should not be inspections, but they must be fair, consistent and within the law. Otherwise, it becomes arbitrary,” they emphasised.
ALSO READ | EEC MD’s contract expires, awaits Cabinet decision
For these reasons, they have called for the matter to be examined by the Eswatini Competition Commission, warning that reputational damage inflicted through public allegations could advantage rival firms, both locally and internationally.
“This is no longer just a labour issue. It is a competition issue. If government actions are contributing to the loss of business for certain firms based on unverified claims, then that must be interrogated,” said one textile firm owner.
The textile sector remains a cornerstone of the country’s manufacturing base, employing over 22 000 workers, many of whom are women who rely on these jobs as their primary source of income.
Investors have warned that if the current approach continues, the consequences could extend beyond individual firms to the sector as a whole. They point to the fragile nature of global textile supply chains, where buyers are increasingly sensitive to compliance risks and may shift production to alternative markets at short notice.
“Orders can move overnight. Once confidence is shaken, it is very difficult to rebuild,” one investor said.
There is also concern that sustained negative publicity could deter future investment at a time when the country is seeking to strengthen its industrial base.
“This sends the wrong signal. Investors need certainty, predictability and fair treatment. If they feel exposed to reputational risk without due process, they will think twice,” they added.
In the case of Artic Fox, workers alleged that they were required to continue working beyond official hours without compensation and that some had been sent home without proper retrenchment procedures.
Management, however, strongly rejected these claims, insisting that the company operates a structured payment system and that overtime is neither forced nor encouraged.
The company attributed some misunderstandings to its performance-based incentive model, arguing that workers who extend their hours do so voluntarily to meet targets and earn bonuses.
