Court rules against govt in conflict-of-interest case

The High Court has ruled that the National Assembly acted unconstitutionally by rejecting a Private Member’s Bill (Conflict-of-Interest Bill, 2024), aimed at barring Members of Parliament (MPs) and executives with government contracts from holding office.

The Bill, proposed through a motion by Basotho Covenant Movement (BCM) leader, Dr Tšepo Lipholo on November 1, 2024 was seconded by Popular Front for Democrats (PFD) leader, Advocate Lekhetho Rakuoane. It failed to pass in the National Assembly as only 12 MPs supported while the majority gave it thump down.

Dr Lipholo’s motion reads: “A Bill for an Act to limit prohibit members of Parliament and the Executive to have certain prescribed interests in Government contracts that violate the letter and spirit of Section 59(1)(e) of the Constitution and as such would have the effect of disqualifying a member from being elected and/or continue to be a member of Senate and National Assembly; and the Bill to also deal with conflict of interest in respect of other spectrums of Government officials.”

Dissatisfied by the rejection of the motion, Socialist Revolution (SR) leader, Teboho Mojapela, the BCM and the PFD approached the court for intervention. The case was heard on February 4, 2026.

The applicants, represented by Advocate Fusi Sehapi, had argued that the National Assembly had failed to fulfil its constitutional mandate. They sought the court to direct the National Assembly to comply with Section 59(1)(e) of the Constitution. The applicants were challenging the procedure in Parliament.

The High Court, comprising Judges Moroke Mokhesi, Tšeliso Mokoko, and Tsebang Putsoane, delivered its verdict on March 5, declaring that Parliament’s decision to reject the bill was a violation of the Constitution.

The judges emphasised that while Parliament has the power to vote, it cannot use this power to disobey the Constitution.

The court has given Parliament 24 months to enact legislation to address the conflict-of-interest issue.

The respondents, including the Speaker of the National Assembly, Tlohang Sekhamane, Leader of the National Assembly, Nthomeng Majara, Prime Minister Sam Matekane, Minister of Law and Constitutional Affairs, Richard Ramoeletsi, and Attorney General, Advocate Rapelang Motsieloa, were represented by Advocate L Tau.

The applicants had also sought a review of the decision under Section 119(1) of the Constitution, asking the court to compel the National Assembly to fulfil its constitutional mandate to enact the conflict-of-interest law.

They had further argued that MPs are acting out of greed by benefiting from both legislative power and government contracts, thereby violating Section 59 of the Lesotho Constitution.

Adve Mojapela condemned these actions as unethical and unconstitutional, accusing MPs of betraying their fiduciary duties to the public. He is asking the court to review and nullify the ruling parties’ majority vote against the Bill, arguing that it is irrational and unconstitutional.

However, Sekhamane raised a preliminary objection (point in limine), arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the motion, citing the principle of separation of powers between the executive, parliament, and judiciary.

The applicants are, in effect, challenging parliamentary procedure. Sekhamane had argued that Section 81(1) of the Constitution grants each House of Parliament the authority to regulate its own procedures and establish rules for orderly proceedings.

Where Parliament has failed to follow proper legislative procedures, the court may review its decisions. In this case, all procedures were followed in accordance with the National Assembly Standing Orders, 2022. Therefore, the Honourable Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this matter, he submitted.

Sekhamane had also contended that the court does not have the power to compel Parliament to pass a law or approve a private member’s bill. The doctrine of separation of powers requires the judiciary to respect Parliament’s independence and legislative authority, he noted.

“What the applicant is seeking is for this Honourable Court to compel another branch of government to perform its function. That amounts to a usurpation of the legislator’s powers. This court cannot and does not have the authority to order Parliament to pass the Conflict-of-Interest Bill. Moreover, passing the Bill after its rejection would be contrary to Section 81(1) of the Constitution,” Sekhamane argued. The court ultimately rejected his argument, ruling that Parliament’s decision to reject the Bill was unconstitutional.