…to avoid compromising justice delivery
Moroke Sekoboto
POLITICAL analysts and human rights activists have described the safety of judicial officers as a structural requirement for the proper administration of justice, not a luxury.
This after an incident in which a judge was mugged while jogging in a Maseru suburb on New Year’s day shone the spotlight on judicial officers’ safety and security and its implications on justice delivery.
High Court Judge Polo Banyane was robbed of her iPhone 15 Pro Max cellphone worth M32 000 at knife-point.
Three suspects appeared in court last week charged with robbery.
Although the incident appears to be a pure criminal case, analysts this week stressed that judges and magistrates routinely handle sensitive matters that expose them to threats, intimidation and harassment, particularly in high-profile cases involving powerful interests.
Human rights activist, Advocate Lepeli Moeketsi, said the challenges facing judicial officers in Lesotho are longstanding and well known. He said judges and magistrates operate in an environment characterised by high-profile criminal trials, politically sensitive disputes and cases involving influential individuals.
“When those who make decisions in such matters lack basic security, it inevitably affects both their independence and the public’s confidence in the justice system,” Adv Moeketsi said.
He pointed to international standards, saying the United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary are explicit that states must ensure judges can perform their functions without intimidation, harassment or improper interference.
“Security is part of that obligation. It is not about privilege; it is about enabling judicial officers to carry out their constitutional duties without fear.”
Adv Moeketsi added the situation was particularly acute for magistrates, who handle the bulk of criminal cases, including violent crime.
“Many magistrates travel by public transport, live in the same communities as accused persons, and have no protection whatsoever.
“This exposes them to risks that can influence how they approach cases, whether consciously or subconsciously. A magistrate who fears retaliation may hesitate to deny bail, issue warrants or convict dangerous offenders. That is not a theoretical concern; it is a practical reality.”
Turning to judges, Adv Moeketsi said the judge’s robbery on New Year’s day illustrated judicial officers’ broader vulnerability.
“Not every incident is necessarily linked to a judicial role, but the absence of adequate security creates an environment where targeted intimidation becomes easier.
“In high-profile cases, especially those involving corruption, organised crime or political violence, this vulnerability can compromise both the pace and quality of decision-making,” he said.
However, Adv Moeketsi acknowledged that extending full security benefits to judicial officers should be balanced with legitimate expectations about the prudent use of public resources.
“Taxpayers should not carry unnecessary burdens,” he said, adding that security should be guided by a risk-assessment model rather than rank alone.
International best practice, he said, tailored protection to the nature of the cases handled, the level of exposure and the existence of credible threats.
“A judicial officer who consistently avoids work or does not perform cannot justify additional expenditure simply because of the title they hold. Accountability and performance must go hand-in-hand with protection.
“Ultimately, this is not about creating a privileged class of officials. It is about safeguarding the integrity of the justice system. When judicial officers feel unsafe, justice is delayed, compromised or distorted.
“When they are adequately protected, within reasonable and fiscally responsible limits, they are better able to deliver impartial decisions, even in the most sensitive cases. That is in the interest of the public, the rule of law and the country’s stability.”
National University of Lesotho (NUL) Senior Lecturer and Head of the Department of Political and Administrative Studies, Dr Tlohang Letsie, agreed that judicial officers required tighter security because of the sensitivities of their work.
While judges are provided with bodyguards, he said the current arrangements remain inadequate.
“Our laws recognise the sensitivity of their work, which is why judges are provided with vehicles and bodyguards. However, the level of security we are seeing is still insufficient given how crucial their work is,” Dr Letsie said.
He said magistrates are particularly vulnerable, describing it as inappropriate for officers of their calibre to rely on public transport.
“They may find themselves travelling with relatives of people they have just convicted. That can put their lives at risk and compromise justice. The state needs to beef up their security.”
Referring to the recent mugging of Justice Banyane, Dr Letsie said it was possible that the attackers were ordinary criminals who did not know their victim was a judge. However, he warned that such incidents demonstrated the vulnerability of judicial officers.
“If people of their stature experience such incidents, no matter how minor they may seem, it shows they are exposed to the risk of planned attacks. It would therefore be proper to review their security and make it tighter than it is now,” he said.
Professor Motlamelle Kapa, also from NUL’s Department of Political and Administrative Studies, echoed these views, saying judges and magistrates require protection because of the nature of their work. He cautioned, however, that limited state resources necessitated a careful assessment of their vulnerability.
“People who work in sensitive jobs like theirs obviously need protection. Judges already have some level of security, but extending the same to magistrates would require substantial resources. It would not end there, as the need would extend to local courts as well, where officers often adjudicate cases involving people they live with in their own communities,” Prof Kapa said.
He said the state had an obligation to provide security to judicial officers, even while resource constraints remained a challenge.
“Generally, everyone needs security, but magistrates and judges perform duties that place them at particular risk. The state must assess the level of threat and respond appropriately, as it usually does when credible threats arise.”
Prof Kapa added that the recent attack on a judge should prompt a broader review of security arrangements for judicial officers.
“Whether it is a judge or a magistrate, incidents like this expose security gaps. Judicial officers need protection, especially when there are clear warning signs, such as the recent mugging of a judge,” he said.
