- Rejects plea to withdraw illegal suspension
- As criminal justice system now stands in total paralysis
- DPP rejects her suspension
- Gvt locks her out of office and vindictively cancels her security
Mohloai Mpesi
THE government is standing firm on its decision to suspend Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Advocate Hlalefang Motinyane, despite an urgent appeal from the Law Society of Lesotho (LSL), which insists the suspension is illegal and unconstitutional.
Efforts by the LSL to reverse the 24 June 2025 suspension hit a brick wall yesterday after government officials rejected the Society’s request, even as the legal body warned it would escalate the matter to the courts.
LSL President Adv Lintle Tuke, who led the delegation in a meeting with government officials, confirmed the impasse.
“The meeting went on very smoothly today between the Law Society, represented by myself and the Vice President, Advocate Mokhoro Makara, and the government, represented by the Minister of Law and Justice, Richard Ramoeletsi, and the Attorney General Rapelang Motsieloa KC,” Adv Tuke told the Lesotho Times yesterday.
“The government made it clear that they are not revoking the (DPP) suspension. We as the Law Society will advise ourselves accordingly.”
Law Society letter to PM
The LSL had earlier written to Prime Minister Sam Matekane on Tuesday, challenging the legality of the suspension. The letter, signed by the Society’s Secretary, Advocate Ithabeleng Phamotse, warned the Prime Minister to reverse the suspension or face court action.
Adv Phamotse argued that the suspension was a clear constitutional breach. She stated that, according to the Constitution, the power to suspend key constitutional office bearers such as the DPP lies exclusively with His Majesty the King, acting on the advice of the Public Service Commission (PSC)—not the Prime Minister.
“It has come to our attention that your Office has taken steps to suspend the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) from office. We are duty-bound to express our deep and principled concern that this action, however well-intentioned it may be, contravenes express constitutional provisions and imperils the very foundation of our democratic order,” the letter read.
“The Constitution of the Kingdom of Lesotho is unambiguous in its allocation of powers, responsibilities, and prerogatives concerning key constitutional office-bearers. In particular, in terms of Section 141 (7), the power to suspend the DPP vests in the King on the advice of the Public Service Commission. It is clear from this that it does not grant the Prime Minister powers to suspend the DPP.
“It is equally clear under the same constitutional scheme that the removal of the DPP must similarly follow due process and the same constitutional architecture. Neither the Prime Minister nor any member of the Executive has unilateral power to dismiss the DPP. Any such action, if not carried out in compliance with constitutional processes, is ultra vires, void ab initio, and of no legal effect,” the letter continued.
Independence at stake
Adv Phamotse also highlighted that the DPP’s office was meant to operate free from political interference and that any overreach into its operations could have devastating implications.
“The Office of the DPP is a constitutional bulwark and embankment designed to operate independently from political interference. It exists precisely to ensure that prosecutions are carried out impartially, fairly, and without fear or favour. Undermining its independence—even by the appearance of political overreach—has devastating consequences not only for the criminal justice system but for public confidence in the integrity of government.”
She further warned that allowing the suspension to stand would set a dangerous precedent for the Executive to bypass constitutional mechanisms and arbitrarily remove office bearers.
“Should this dismissal be allowed to stand, it would set a precedent that the Executive may bypass constitutional mechanisms and displace office-bearers at will. This not only undermines the legitimacy of independent offices but erodes the carefully constructed checks and balances that define our constitutional order.
“We must remind your office that constitutional protections are not ornamental—they are substantive, enforceable, and inviolable,” Adv Phamotse said.
She called on the Prime Minister to immediately withdraw any communication or action purporting to remove the DPP from office, to refrain from taking any further unconstitutional steps concerning the office, and to refer the matter to the PSC for proper handling in accordance with the Constitution. She also urged the Prime Minister to respect the judicial processes already underway on the matter.
Adv Phamotse further warned that failure to resolve the issue amicably would leave the LSL with no option but to seek remedies through the courts.
“In view of the above, we request an urgent meeting with your good office and/or your representative on Wednesday the 2nd of July 2025 (yesterday) at 09:00 in order to discuss measures that would preserve the constitutional provisions upon which sound democratic principles are undersigned.
“It is our ardent belief that you will find it in order to avoid what we consider unnecessary litigation. Should an amicable resolution of the matter fail, we will have no option but to seek intervention from the courts of law,” she said.
PM’s case against DPP
In his letter dated 24 June 2025, Prime Minister Matekane informed Adv Motinyane of her immediate suspension. However, the letter was only served this Monday when she returned from Zambia, where she had attended the Annual General Meeting of the Southern Africa Heads of Prosecution (SAHOP).
The Prime Minister accused the DPP of failing to make written representations in response to serious allegations against her by 24 May 2024—representations that were meant to assist the King in appointing an impeachment tribunal under Section 141 (6) of the Constitution.
Among the allegations, Mr Matekane said, was her failure to issue prosecution directives as required by Section 99 of the Constitution, citing the example of case RCI: 46/04/2023.
“Instead of making representations as requested, on the 6th of June 2024, you addressed a letter to me in which you requested further particulars. Eventually, on 1 July 2024—after I indicated to you that I was not going to engage with your 45-page request—you did make representations.
“Simultaneously, you filed a constitutional case in court aimed at preventing impeachment proceedings from being pursued against you,” the letter read.
The Prime Minister said the DPP had instead embarked on a campaign to frustrate accountability efforts, including launching multiple court cases. (see story on page 6)
“To date, you still have not prosecuted your case. Instead, you have since lodged two more complaints in court. In the first one, you unsuccessfully challenged the quorum of the judges allocated to hear your case. You then followed that up with the now pending recusal application.
“The result is that through this litany of court applications, you have stultified efforts to hold you accountable. Meanwhile, you are continuing to exercise your powers as DPP while facing serious allegations which call into question your fitness to occupy the office,” he said.
Legal fees and alleged forgery
Mr Matekane also said he had received disturbing information that the DPP wrote to the Principal Secretary of the Ministry of Law, asking him to pay M600,000 in legal fees she incurred while suing the government in her private capacity.
“As the DPP and one of the most senior government officials, you know very well that public funds cannot be expended to settle legal expenses incurred by you in your private capacity. This is yet another act which touches on the credibility and integrity of your office,” he stated.
He said the lawyer she had appointed to represent her was also the same person prosecuting a case against a Deputy Commissioner of Police—raising further concerns about impartiality. Adv Motinyane is represented by Adv Tekane Maqakachane in these proceedings, whom she has appointed to prosecute DCP Sera Makharilele’s alleged involvement in the M32 million Lerotholi Polytechnic theft case.
Mr Matekane also alleged that during an official trip to Morocco in July 2024, Adv Motinyane instructed her office to “fabricate” a backdated directive related to the case RCI: 46/04/2023 and had it signed by a Junior Crown Counsel. The Lesotho Times could not immediately ascertain the details of this case.
“This particular directive was only collected by the police in July 2024 after numerous enquiries spanning over a year. It is the one contained in the docket and not the one you said you issued on the 14th of April 2024,” he said.
He therefore said allowing her to remain in office while these serious allegations hung over her head would damage the credibility of the DPP’s office.
“In the premises, you are therefore suspended from exercising functions of your office effective immediately upon your receipt of this letter. The suspension is not a punishment but a necessary precaution in light of credible allegations against you.”
Motinyane’s fight back
In her own response to the Prime Minister, Advocate Motinyane rejected the suspension and vowed to continue discharging her duties.
“I am in receipt of your letter dated 24th June, 2025 which I received today the 30th June 2025. In terms of that letter, you purport to suspend me from office for reasons which you cite in the letter,” DPP Motinyane wrote.
“I wish to bring to your attention that the only constitutional authority to suspend the DPP is the King acting on the advice of the Public Service Commission. This is in terms of Section 141 (7) of the Constitution of Lesotho 1993.
“The suspension of the DPP can only be preceded by three pre-conditions prescribed by the Constitution. First the appointment of the Tribunal. Second, referral of the relevant question to that Tribunal. Third, the relevant advice by the Commission to his Majesty.
“Your purported suspension of me is therefore clearly contrary to the Constitution. I will continue to exercise my functions as the DPP until I have been removed by due process of the law.
“You are hereby required to retract the same letter within three days of receipt thereof, failing which I will have no option but to approach courts of Lesotho (sic) for intervention. I anticipate your timely response on or before Thursday 3rd July, 2025 before close of business.”
Locked out of office?
The DPP’s fight back appears to have infuriated the government which then elevated its undignified approach to ousting her a notch further.
Instead of responding to her letter, it sent police officers to lock her out of her office. When the DPP reported for duty on Tuesday, she could not access her office as the locks had been changed.
When the Lesotho Times visited the DPP’s office suite later on Tuesday, it was deserted. Only her secretary’s office was open but it was also empty as no one responded when our news crew knocked. Sources at the Government Complex – where her suite is located – cconfirmed that the office locks had been changed to prevent her access. However, Minister Ramoeletsi denied knowledge of that development.
Ramoeletsi: suspension was lawful
Minister Ramoeletsi remained adamant that the suspension was lawful and appropriate under the circumstances.
“We are not withdrawing the suspension for the simple reason that we feel we are not wrong. The prerogative of the PSC to advise the King to suspend—on which the Law Society is premising its argument—only kicks in when the tribunal has been established. In this instance, it has not, as she (DPP) went to court before it could be established.
“At the current stage, her supervisors have powers to suspend her. In law, the Attorney General is the DPP’s supervisor and advisor to the government on legal issues.
“She was being investigated when she ran to court to challenge a tribunal which had not been established. She was only asked to make representations as to why the Prime Minister may not advise the King to form a tribunal.”
He emphasised that the suspension was not a dismissal.
“You should understand that suspension is not expulsion. She has a right to challenge it in court and not just decide to act against the instruction that she is suspended. I am not aware of the issue that she is locked out of office,” Mr Ramoeletsi said.
Paralysis
The decision to lock the DPP out of her office has thrown the criminal justice system into absolute turmoil, if not paralysis. It means there is no one currently empowered to sign off criminal dockets for prosecution.
Even if the government moves to appoint an Acting DPP, the decisions of any such person could potentially be all null and void if the courts subsequently rule that Advocate Motinyane’s suspension was unlawful.
The very undignified decision to lock her out of office – despite that hers is a constitutional office whose independence is protected by the Constitution – is likely to be seen as crude vindictiveness.
Security
A further sign of the government’s vindictive approach is its decision to withdraw Advocate Motinyane’s army bodyguards. Even though the Prime Minister’s letter to her said she was being suspended with full benefits, the Lesotho Times can authoritatively confirm that her security detail has all been withdrawn exposing her to security risks.
Victim of politics
In her Constitutional Court application filed in July last year, DPP Motinyane accused Deputy Prime Minister, Nthomeng Majara, of instructing her to drop treason and murder charges against politicians Mothetjoa Metsing and Selibe Mochoboroane. This was when Ms Majara still doubled as Minister of Law and Justice before the portfolio was re-assigned to Mr Ramoeletsi in a cabinet reshuffle in November 2023.
She claims Ms Majara ordered her to withdraw charges against Messrs Metsing and Mochoboroane, whose Lesotho Congress for Democracy (LCD) and Movement for Economic Change (MEC) respectively, are coalition partners with Mr Matekane’s ruling Revolution For Prosperity (RFP).
Mr Metsing is listed as political advisor to Mr Matekane by the DPP while Mr Mochoboroane serves as the Minister of Health. Adv Motinyane states her refusal to drop charges against Mr Matekane’s coalition allies is the real reason behind the bid to oust her. She had rejected the directive because it infringed on her office’s constitutionally guaranteed independence.
“In September 2023, I was called to DPM Majara’s office and after discussions on several matters concerning the ministry, DPM Majara, acting in her capacity as the Law and Justice Minister, instructed me to withdraw charges against Mr Metsing and Minister Mochoboroane. She requested me to call the duo and to talk to them about the matter of withdrawal of charges,” DPP Motinyane states in her founding affidavit.
“I refused to follow the instruction as it amounted to unlawful and unconstitutional interference with the prosecutorial independence of the DPP. The aforesaid instruction was essentially the trigger of the events that would lead to my impeachment (sic).
“I aver that the instruction by the DPM Majara to me as the DPP to withdraw criminal charges against Mr Metsing and Minister Mochoboroane is unconstitutional and null and void. Such instruction amounts to a threat to the independence and autonomy of the office of the DPP in its prosecutorial functions, powers and discretion. It amounts to political interference and meddling with the functions, powers and discretion of the office of the DPP.”
Attorney-General Motsieloa did not wholly deny the DPP’s allegation on the issue of withdrawal of charges. He instead stated Ms Majara had only “suggested” and not “instructed”, her to withdraw charges. But such a suggestion would still be seen as unlawful as it infringes on her prosecutorial discretion.
DPP Motinyane believes that her refusal to toe the political line is the real reason for her current ordeal at the hands of Mr Matekane and his political allies.
