…peeved by “secrecy” of warrant in car seizure dispute
Moorosi Tsiane
CHIEF Justice Sakoane Sakoane has sharply criticised the Directorate on Corruption and Economic Offences (DCEO) for allegedly withholding a search-and-seizure warrant after confiscating a vehicle belonging to former WILSA Programmes Director, Mamosa Mohlabula-Nokana, which she is still paying for and had leased to the Ministry of Education.
This follows revelations in the High Court this week that the DCEO had obtained an ex parte (unopposed) warrant from the Magistrate Court to seize Advocate Mohlabula-Nokana’s vehicle in connection with fraud, money laundering and theft charges it has levelled against her.
The anti-corruption body has been accused of refusing to give her the warrant despite several requests.
Representing Adv Mohlabula-Nokana, Attorney Qhalehang Letsika urged the court to treat the matter as urgent, warning that his client risked severe contractual and financial complications.
“My Lord, the DCEO seizes a vehicle belonging to the Applicant and she tried to engage the DCEO asking for reasons why her vehicle has been confiscated. But her letters to the DCEO Director General were not responded to,” Mr Letsika submitted.
He emphasised that the vehicle was bought on hire-purchase from Nedbank Lesotho and leased out to the Ministry of Education — obligations his client must continue honouring despite being deprived of the car.
“So I submit, my Lord, that the Applicant stands to suffer irreparable harm . . . She is obligated to honour her loan to the bank, and also her contractual obligations to the government. Yet she is impeded by the DCEO, who are not ready to offer an explanation,” he said, adding that the silence by the statutory body amounted to an abuse of power.
Adv Bongani Mohlouoa, for the DCEO, countered Mr Letsika, arguing that financial loss did not constitute urgency under established legal principles.
“My Lord, the basis for urgency by decisions of this Court does not include financial loss. This has been the decision of the Court for a long time,” Adv Mohlouoa argued.
But the Chief Justice pressed him on the agency’s refusal to furnish the warrant.
“Where is that warrant? That warrant should have been given to the applicant. You don’t hold on to a warrant . . . It is not a secret weapon or document,” Justice Sakoane said, visibly irked.
He accused the DCEO of ignoring Adv Mohlabula-Nokana’s inquiries and acting unlawfully by seizing property without providing supporting documentation.
In response, Adv Mohlouoa said the DCEO failed to reply because the responsible officer was unavailable, a justification the Chief Justice dismissed outright.
“That’s a domestic problem . . . But the inquiry is very simple. You are saying loss of money is not the basis for urgency, but not in the circumstances of this case, where a clear illegality is committed. The onus is on the DCEO. It’s always on the state to justify,” Justice Sakoane insisted.
Adv Mohlouoa maintained that the applicant would not suffer irreparable harm since any financial loss could be quantified. He offered to “show” her the warrant informally, a proposition rejected by the court.
Justice Sakoane ruled that the warrant must be filed formally as part of the record, stating that transparency was not optional when the state interferes with citizens’ property.
After heated exchanges, the Chief Justice upheld the application for urgency.
The case will now be heard on 10 December 2025, where the lawfulness of the seizure, and the DCEO’s handling of the warrant, will come under full judicial scrutiny.
