Mohloai Mpesi
THE Private Member’s Bill, seeking to amend the National Assembly Electoral Act by abolishing party lists and requiring the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) to allocate Proportional Representation (PR) seats based on the “performance” of individual losing constituency candidates, has been rejected.
The Democratic Congress (DC) and the Basotho Action Party (BAP) argue that the Bill is set to favour only the elite who can afford expensive campaigns, while marginalising small politicians.
The Bill was tabled in the National Assembly on 2 December 2025 by Revolution for Prosperity (RFP) legislator for Makhaleng constituency, Mootsi Lehata, and All Basotho Convention (ABC) Proportional Representative (PR) Lebohang Hlaele. Introduced under Standing Order No. 52 (1), it is titled the National Assembly Electoral Amendment Bill, 2025.
The Bill aims to amend Sections 47 to 51 of the Principal Law by removing provisions that require political parties to submit party lists before general elections for PR purposes. Instead, it mandates the IEC to calculate and award PR seats based on the performance of candidates in their constituencies.
In a press release this week, DC argued that the Bill “disadvantages small and emerging parties” while rewarding well-resourced parties and increasing electoral volatility.
“The motion rewards large, well-resourced parties concentrated in specific geographic pockets, increases electoral volatility and litigation, and undermines coalition stability by distorting representation. A democracy cannot function if seats in Parliament no longer reflect party support,” DC stated.
The party also highlighted that the motion threatens Lesotho’s democracy and undermines gender equality.
“After comprehensive legal, constitutional, and mathematical analysis, we submit that this motion threatens the foundation of Lesotho’s democracy, undermines gender equity, and risks destabilising the electoral system.”
The party emphasised that the Bill undermines the constitutional design of Lesotho’s Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) system, adopted to correct extreme disproportionalities of the former First-Past-the-Post system. By cancelling party lists, a core mechanism for compensatory PR, the Bill replaces proportionality with a “performance-based lottery”.
“Creating representation that is not anchored in the will of voters as expressed through party ballots replaces constitutional proportionality with candidate-based approximation, which has no foundation in the Constitution or MMP reforms of 2001.”
DC also warned that the motion could exacerbate rural-urban inequalities and weaken gender representation.
“The Motion allows small constituencies to disproportionately influence Parliament, inflates urban power under absolute-vote ranking, inflates rural power under percentage ranking, and creates incentives for boundary manipulation (‘soft gerrymandering’). A best-performing loser model has no gender safeguards, rewards constituencies that already under-elect women, and reverses 20 years of gender-progressive reforms.”
The party further highlighted financial and political risks: PR eligibility based on individual campaigns, not party votes, would increase campaign costs, encourage “celebrity candidates”, fuel intra-party conflicts, and trigger large-scale litigation.
BAP leader, Professor Nqosa Mahao, also opposed the Bill, saying it undermines the pillars of PR and effectively reinstates the First-Past-the-Post model.
“Currently, a political party submits a list of 40 people to the IEC before elections. This motion would remove that, allowing PR seats to be allocated based on the ‘best loser’ principle. It replaces party-focused elections with individual contests, contradicts the constitution, and undermines PR’s foundational structure.”
Prof Mahao added that the Bill could enable wealthy candidates to dominate constituencies, create electoral inequalities, and unfairly reward some candidates over others based on arbitrary performance metrics.
“This Bill does not have good intentions and is likely to cause chaos. Once it passes, we are prepared to challenge it in the Constitutional Court for being unconstitutional.”
For his part, Mr Lehata defended the Bill, asserting that it “actually empowers women” through the Zebra model.
“The purpose of the Zebra model was to empower women. This Bill ensures that once someone is a leader, they have a fair chance of performing well because they are prioritised within the party. We are only adjusting execution so that the IEC allocates seats based on performance, considering the Zebra system,” Mr Lehata said.
The Bill has sparked intense debate, with opposition parties warning of potential legal challenges and the destabilisation of Lesotho’s proportional electoral system if it is adopted.
