Staff Reporters
PRIME Minister Sam Matekane has kickstarted the process to establish a tribunal to impeach Director of Public Prosecutions, Advocate (Adv) Hlalefang Motinyane, from office.
In a letter dated 14 May 2024 to Adv Motinyane, the Prime Minister gave her a 10-day ultimatum to show cause why he should not recommend to His Majesty King Letsie III to establish an “Impeachment Tribunal” to consider her fitness to remain in office.
Mr Matekane’s letter comes in the wake of spirited efforts by his Justice and Law Minister, Richard Ramoeletsi, to compel Adv Motinyane to accept a demotion to a lower position of advisor to Attorney General (AG) Rapelang Motsieloa or to accept a diplomatic posting to Geneva.
Adv Motinyane had rejected both options (see lead story) preferring to fight to remain in her statutory post.
Mr Ramoeletsi had denied that moves were afoot to remove the DPP in interviews with the Lesotho Times. He had also denied ever proposing to redeploy DPP Motinyane to the AG’s office. However, evidence now proves the minister was effectively lying (see lead story).
Even late last night, Minister Ramoeletsi said he was not aware of moves to impeach the DPP. He said he was not aware of the Prime Minister’s letter and would have to check with him first before commenting.
“I am not aware of the letter (from the Prime Minister). I will have to check before commenting….,” Mr Ramoeletsi said.
However, an official in the Prime Minister’s office, who provided the Lesotho Times with a copy of the letter but asked not to be named because he is not authorised to speak to the press, said it was inconceivable that the Prime Minister can write such an expansive letter without the knowledge of his line minister in charge of the portfolio at issue. Moreso since it was Mr Ramoeletsi himself who had been at the forefront of efforts to redeploy the DPP.
The Lesotho Times can now authoritatively inform the nation that the DPP has not been suspended as some media reports had suggested but that proceedings to impeach her have now commenced. She is however expected to fight, tooth nail and claw to resist the impeachment.
The Prime Minister has told the DPP she intends to advice His Majesty King Letsie III to establish an impeachment inquiry to remove her from office. He has given the DPP until 3pm on 24 May 2024 to show cause why he should not proceed with advising the King to set up the impeachment tribunal.
Mr Matekane lists a number of reasons in his 15-page letter to the DPP for his decision to want to remove her from office. The reasons mirror the ones advanced by Mr Ramoeletsi in an exclusive interview with the Lesotho Times about three weeks ago. They all boil down to one essential charge: that the DPP is “incompetent and lazy” and has “failed” to run her office as expected.
Other crime fighting organisations, the Lesotho Mounted Police Service (LMPS), the Directorate on Corruption and Economic Offences (DCEO) and the Attorney General’s office had all complained that Adv Motinyane’s “incompetence” had harm-strung the entire criminal justice delivery system.
Adv Motinyane has vehemently rejected these allegations as initially raised by Mr Ramoeletsi (see lead story). Yesterday, she refused to comment on whether or not she had been served with the Prime Minister’s show cause letter.
She said any communication between her and the Prime Minister was between them. If she receives any correspondence from the Prime Minister requiring a response, she would respond to the Prime Minister directly.
The Prime Minister’s Press attache Thapelo Mabote declined to comment referring all questions to Mr Ramoeletsi.
However, despite all this evasiveness, the Lesotho Times can authoritatively state that the PM is now after the DPP’s scalp.
“Recent complaints from various Public Officials/The Attorney General regarding inefficiencies, mismanagement, ineptness and fraudulent non disclosures directed at advocate Motinyane (the DPP), personally, as well as her office, have been received by this office…..” the Prime Minister states in his opening salvo.
“Representations/advice are hereby tendered that require investigations (by impeachment tribunal) as envisaged in terms of section 141 (4), read with section 141 (6) of the Constitutional mandate by His Majesty the King…..
“These representations and consequent advice (broadly themed) are on the face value indicative of advocate Motinyane’s inability to exercise the function of the Director of Public Prosecutions’ Office (sic)
“The complaints are serious, and her conduct constitutes misbehaviour in one, more or all of he following ways –
“ The inept and inefficient manner in which advocate Motinyane have been steering prosecutions (sic) on behalf of the Crown;
“Various complaints ranging/resulting from mismanagement of the DPP’s office exist, being the general lack of prosecution directives issued (which a DPP is statutorily obliged to do), guidance and leadership provided, as experienced by the executive functionaries (LMPS, DCEO and AG).
“The manner in which advocate Motinyane conducts herself in the Courts of Lesotho, and the complaints by Judges against advocate Motinyane of reckless disregard for Court procedure/decorum or the oath of her office regarding honesty; and
“Advocate Motinyane being arrested in South Africa on fraud related charges that were to date never disclosed, nor does it befit the high office she was appointed to, as the Director of Public Prosecutions. These are alleged dishonest complaints.
“These complaints addressed below under separate headings are premised on objective evidence furnished to my office…… The magnitude and number of complaints received (together with the evidence that has been presented) renders me dutybound to convey/present/advise His Majesty to investigate these matters/issues substantively with the process as provided for in section 141 (6) of the Constitution.”
The Prime Minister then goes to list complaints raised by the police, the DCEO and the Attorney General against the DPP which showed that “Advocate Motinyane has failed on numerous occasions to effectively and efficiently prosecute cases, which include high profile cases…..”
Mr Matekane for instance cites the granting of bail to two suspects in the treason matter against former army commander Tlali Kamoli by Justice (Maliepollo) Makhetha during March 2024 because of the “Crown’s non preparedness in this matter (CRI/T/0001/18-Rex v Tlali Kamoli and others-Treason matter).
“CRI/T/0003/18 – Rex v Litekanyo Nyakane and others (Mafeteng murders). As a result of the various delays due to the Crown’s non preparedness in this matter, four accused were granted bail by Justice Polo Banyane during January 2024.”
Mr Matekane then proceeds to accuse DPP Motinyane of having failed to exercise oversight on private lawyers to which she had outsourced prosecutorial services. He also cites several cases from the DCEO over which the DPP had “failed” to provide prosecutorial directives.
“The failures to issue directives and/or the delay in issuing directives (ranging between 8 and 18 months) prevent timeous and effective prosecutions on behalf of the Crown…..The inability/failure to issue timeous directives does not instil faith in the criminal justice by the people of Lesotho (sic)….
“The DPP’s actions/omissions are viewed as misbehaviour……..”
The premier further accused DPP Motinyane of failing to report to Justice and Law Minister Ramoeletsi on several requested information like a report on the backlog of cases to help the government “measure the delays against existing and required infrastructure…”
The DPP was unable to provide these reports because of the disarray in his office, Mr Matekane wrote.
The DPP had either submitted “sub-standard” reports or “failed” to timeously provide justification for her office’s requested expenditures despite being asked to do so. She had also spent most of her office’s budget (more than M11 million) in paying South African lawyer, Adv Shaun Abrahams, who had been engaged to prosecute high profile cases.
“The M11 million spent on Advocate Shaun Abrahams over the years was not budgeted for and the DPP refused and/or failed to include Adv Abrahams costs in the annual budgets…..” the PM stated.
He also accused the DPP of not taking corrective action in those cases from which Adv Abrahams had withdrawn his services. Adv Abrahams was still in possession of the dockets, prejudicing new prosecutors from proceeding with the cases, the premier alleged.
Adv Abrahams had withdrawn from six high profile cases over delays in the payment of his fees.
Mr Matekane said the LMPS had complained that the DPP was sitting on cases involving serious offenses and these had become stagnant.
The DPP had also been blamed for the enormous backlog of criminal cases amounting to about 5000 because of her “failure” to issue directives. The Prime Minister noted a case in which Chief Justice Sakoane Sakoane had accused the DPP of “loitering” instead of doing her work.
The DPP had also been accused of “deceiving” courts and fellow prosecutors about the availability of witnesses resulting in cases failing to proceed when witnesses did not appear, the premier stated.
The case of former Principal Secretary Tanki Mothae who had a warrant of arrest issued against him for failing to attend the case of Rex v Litekanyo Nyakane and others (CRI/T/0001/2018) was cited as an example.
Retired Colonel Mothae complained he had not been informed of the trial date by the DPP. He had threatened to withdraw from the case unless the DPP told the court the truth about what had happened and had the warrant cancelled. Mr Matekane accused adv Motinyane of not cooperating and responding to Col Mothae and of essentially embarrassing the ex-PS by having the warrant issued in the first place.
He also accused her of failing to disclose that she had been “arrested” in South Africa in 2014 for allegedly fraudulently obtaining an SA ID and passport.
The Prime Minister accused her of “favouring” some private lawyers hired by her office by ensuring they were timeously paid when others were not. The PM also listed cases that had become “stagnant” because the DPP had not filed appeal records.
He accused her of “abusing her power” and lacking the legal experience /leadership required to discharge her office’s mandate. She informs her that the “public interest may be impacted” by her continued “holding of office of DPP”.
