…as she launches fresh bid to retain office
Hopolang Mokhopi
THE suspended Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Advocate Hlalefang Motinyane, has intensified her legal battle to reclaim her position, launching fresh litigation challenging Prime Minister Sam Matekane’s authority to advise His Majesty King Letsie III to initiate impeachment proceedings against her.
Adv Motinyane accuses the Prime Minister of lacking candour in his representations to the King, alleging that he failed to disclose the existence of a pending court case in which she is already challenging his decision to seek her removal from office.
She further argues that Chief Justice Sakoane Sakoane was conflicted and therefore incapacitated from appointing a three-member tribunal to assess her fitness for office, as he is cited as a respondent in her earlier, still-pending Constitutional Court case.
Mr Matekane first suspended Adv Motinyane in June 2024, citing alleged misconduct and administrative irregularities. The Law Society of Lesotho (LSL) challenged the move, arguing it was unconstitutional.
In September 2025, the Constitutional Court ruled in her favour, declaring the suspension null and void and ordering her immediate reinstatement. The court held that only the King, acting on the advice of the Public Service Commission (PSC), had the authority to suspend or remove the DPP.
However, upon reporting for duty on 26 September 2025, Adv Motinyane was reportedly denied access to her office. She was again suspended on 7 October 2025 through Legal Notice No. 141 of 2025, this time by His Majesty acting on the advice of the PSC.
This followed Legal Notice No. 137 of 2025, which established a tribunal under section 141(6) of the Constitution to inquire into her fitness to hold office. The tribunal comprises three foreign judges appointed by the King on the advice of Prime Minister Matekane. It is chaired by Justice Thomas Sibusiso Masuku of eSwatini, with Justices Ivy Chatha Kamanga of Malawi and Latifa Mansoor of Tanzania as members.
The tribunal is mandated to investigate whether Adv Motinyane should be removed from office and to submit its findings and recommendations to the King within eight weeks of commencing its work.
PM’s representation to King
Adv Motinyane argues that the government cannot lawfully proceed with her impeachment while her earlier case, filed in August 2024, remains pending before the same court.
She contends that Mr Matekane’s decision to advise His Majesty King Letsie III to initiate an investigation into her possible removal under section 141 of the Constitution was unconstitutional, invalid, and null and void.
“I aver that the decision, act or conduct of the Prime Minister in making the representation to His Majesty the King that the question as to the removing of the DPP under section 141 of the Constitution ought to be investigated, was unconstitutional, invalid, and null and void,” she states in her court papers.
She argues that the question of whether the respondents could proceed with impeachment was expressly dependent on the resolution of issues already before the High Court in Constitutional Case No. 0008/2024.
“The issue whether the respondents could proceed with the impeachment process was pre-conditioned on the resolution of the issues before the High Court in Constitutional Case No. 0008/2024. Prayer 10 in the Notice of Motion in that case specifically related to a permanent interdict restraining the respondents, and they should have awaited the final determination of that issue by the High Court,” she says.
According to Adv Motinyane, the Prime Minister’s continued representations to the King violated the fundamental principle of sub judice (under judicial review).
“To continue to make representations to His Majesty the King that the question of removing the DPP from office ought to be investigated amounted to a clear violation of the fundamental principle of sub judice, which required the first respondent to respect the dignity, autonomy and independence of the High Court in dealing with a live controversy, without rendering the dispute academic or moot,” she argues.
She further accuses Mr Matekane of acting in bad faith.
“In making such representations, well knowing of the pendency of the case, and that the authority of the High Court had not yet been brought to bear in finally determining the issues and Prayer 10 in Constitutional Case No. 0008/2024, the first respondent did not act in good faith, honestly, accountably, responsively and openly,” she states.
Adv Motinyane argues that the Prime Minister breached core constitutional values.
“He thus breached the constitutional principles and values of the rule of law, accountability, responsiveness, openness, bona fide and honest exercise of public power, all of which are postulates of section 2 of the Constitution.”
She maintains that the decision to make representations to the King was driven by an ulterior motive.
“The decision to make representations was influenced by the desire to have me removed from office of the DPP, and not for an objective investigation of my ability or inability to exercise the functions of the office.”
Adv Motinyane further accuses the Prime Minister of usurping the role of the courts.
“He arrogated to himself the ultimate power of determining the legality or constitutionality of the impugned conduct or decisions in Constitutional Case No. 0008/2024. I am advised and believe that courts of law are the only arbiters of lawfulness and constitutionality,” she states, adding that she was treated unfairly in the process.
She also argues that the Prime Minister breached the constitutional principle of rationality.
“In the circumstances of this case, the making of representations to His Majesty the King cannot be said to be rationally connected to the purpose for which the power was given. He thus acted arbitrarily and irrationally, in breach of the constitutional doctrine of rationality.”
Chief Justice
Adv Motinyane further challenges the role of Justice Sakoane in selecting members of the impeachment tribunal, arguing that the process was unconstitutional.
“In the same way as the Chief Justice, as a party to litigation in Constitutional Case No. 0008/2024, is disqualified from appointing judges to preside over that case, so is he disqualified from selecting persons to be appointed as members of the tribunal to investigate the question concerning my removal from office.”
She maintains that the Chief Justice’s involvement tainted the entire process.
“The Chief Justice’s participation in the selection of members of the tribunal in circumstances where he is a party to the litigation constitutes part of the means to achieve the investigation and removal of the DPP under section 141 of the Constitution, and consequently rendered the entire selection process irrational and arbitrary.”
Tribunal
The embattled DPP also argues that the tribunal itself was unlawfully constituted as a result of the Prime Minister’s representations to the King and the Chief Justice’s selection of its members.
“The jurisdictional facts being a nullity, the decision to appoint the impeachment tribunal is vitiated and a nullity.”
She further challenges the decision by the Public Service Commission (PSC) to advise the King to suspend her from office.
“The decision, act or conduct of the Public Service Commission of advising His Majesty the King to suspend me from exercising the functions of the office of the DPP is unconstitutional, invalid and null and void.”
Adv Motinyane claims the suspension was premature and procedurally flawed.
“Of critical importance is that when on 7 October 2025 the Public Service Commission acted to advise His Majesty the King, and the latter acted to suspend me as indicated in Legal Notice No. 141 of 2025, the relevant question of removing the DPP had not been referred to the tribunal itself, as required by section 141(7) of the Constitution.”
She argues that suspension cannot occur merely upon the appointment of a tribunal.
“The tribunal must exist in an operational sense, and the actual relevant question — including charges and allegations of fact — must be referred to it.”
According to Adv Motinyane, the PSC’s advice was therefore “premature and a nullity”, rendering the King’s decision to suspend her equally unconstitutional.
“I have a clear right not to be hauled before and dragged through impeachment tribunal proceedings where all jurisdictional facts and preconditions are a nullity.”
She adds that her rights to dignity and reputation have been violated through what she describes as an unlawful process.
“The harm to my rights is irreparable. The rule of law obligates this Honourable Court, as defender of the Constitution, to guard against the constitutional infractions narrated above.
“In the circumstances, I aver that Legal Notices No. 137 of 2025 and No. 141 of 2025 are wrongful and unlawful and stand to be set aside,” Adv Motinyane claims.
