…takes battle to the Court of Appeal
Moorosi Tsiane
THE Basotho Covenant Movement (BCM) leader, Reverend Tšepo Lipholo’s wife has escalated her spirited bid to block her husband’s alleged looming arrest to the Court of Appeal.
‘Mathapelo Lipholo wants the Court of Appeal to review the Constitutional Court’s decision to deny jurisdiction in her application to stop the alleged looming unlawful arrest of her husband.
This after the Constitutional Court declined jurisdiction over her case on 30 April 2025.
Dr Lipholo has been on a crusade to have South Africa return land he claims it stole from Lesotho.
He petitioned the United Nations General Assembly in January 2025 to intervene in the land return quest which includes the whole of South Africa’s Free State province and other regions.
However, his actions were met with resistance as the Lesotho government distanced itself from his petition.
Before the 30 April ruling, Ms Lipholo had approached the Constitutional Court seeking an urgent interdict against what she describes as her husband’s planned arrest. She wanted the court to bar both the governments of Lesotho and South Africa from arresting Dr Lipholo or subjecting him to torture or any other violations of his rights. This, she argued, was necessary pending the outcome of the their “restoration” petition currently before the United Nations General Assembly.
She also wanted the court to compel the United Nations Security Council to provide Dr Lipholo with personal security while the UN considers the petition.
But her efforts hit a wall. A panel comprising Chief Justice Sakoane Sakoane and Justices Molefi Makara and ‘Mabatšoeneng Hlaele ruled that the Constitutional Court had no jurisdiction over the matter.
Ms Lipholo has now escalated the matter to the apex court. Through her lawyer, Advocate Fusi Sehapi, she has filed an appeal arguing that the Constitutional Court was wrong in refusing to hear the case.
Adv Sehapi contends that the Constitutional Court had erred by declaring that it could not protect Dr Lipholo from being arrested, before even hearing the merits of the case.
“The Court a quo (lower court) ought to have refrained from making such a statement, that it cannot protect Dr Lipholo from arrest, before hearing the full merits. That statement was final and definitive on Dr Lipholo’s rights,” Adv Sehapi submits.
He further argues that the Constitutional Court misdirected itself by refusing to hear the matter on its merits purely on jurisdictional grounds.
“The court already tapped into the merits by stating it could not issue an interdict in favour of a fugitive. It should have gone ahead and decided the matter properly.”
The nine respondents in the bizarre case include Prime Minister Sam Matekane and South African President Cyril Ramaphosa.
Adv Sehapi also challenges the Constitutional Court’s claim that it lacked jurisdiction over the government of South Africa. He insists the interdict Ms Lipholo sought was meant to apply strictly within Lesotho’s borders.
“The Court a quo erred and misdirected itself by making the sweeping statement that it lacked jurisdiction to issue interdicts or provide effective relief. The requested court orders were intended to operate strictly within the territory governed by Lesotho’s courts,” Adv Sehapi argues.
The state, represented by Adv Letsie Moshoeshoe, has not yet filed its response to the appeal. It also remains unclear whether the Court of Appeal will treat the matter as urgent or wait until its October session.
During the Constitutional Court hearing, Adv Moshoeshoe had argued that the court was being asked to overstep its bounds by delving into issues of international policy.
However, Adv Borenahabokhethe Sekonyela, who represented Ms Lipholo, countered that this was a highly unique case deserving special treatment.
Despite that, Justice Sakoane dismissed the application, ruling that the Constitutional Court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
