THE Law Society of Lesotho’s decision to bar non-governmental organisations from representing indigent citizens in court is not only self-serving and ill-considered; it is a profound betrayal of constitutional values and a direct assault on access to justice for the poor.
It proves the brazen avarice of self-aggrandizing lawyers who want briefs for themselves to bulge their pockets without any regard for the public interest.
Cloaked in the language of regulation and legality, this decision reeks of professional protectionism and economic self-interest, with devastating consequences for the most vulnerable Basotho.
The April 2024 resolution by the Law Society is simple and brutal in effect: NGOs such as Women and Law in Southern Africa (WLSA) and Seinoli Legal Centre, which for decades have been the legal lifeline for the poor, marginalised and rural communities, are now to be locked out of the courts. Their lawyers, although duly admitted and qualified, are reduced to “non-practising” status. The message is unmistakable: justice is once again a privilege reserved for those who can afford it.
This decision cannot be divorced from its real-world impact. Lesotho is a country where poverty is widespread, legal fees are prohibitive and private practitioners are concentrated in urban centres. For many Basotho, particularly women, children, and rural communities, NGOs are not an alternative source of legal assistance; they are the only source. To pretend otherwise is either naive or dishonest.
The Law Society’s move exposes a troubling contradiction. On the one hand, it claims to act as a guardian of professional standards and the rule of law. On the other, it has taken a decision that undermines the very foundations of justice by excluding the poor from effective legal representation. Regulation that results in injustice is not regulation in the public interest; it is abuse of power.
Even more disturbing is the manner in which this decision was taken. According to the court papers, WLSA and its legal practitioners were denied a hearing. Their objections were dismissed on the extraordinary basis that a hearing would “serve no purpose”. This is a startling admission. It suggests an institution so convinced of its own infallibility that it sees no need to listen, reflect or justify itself. Such arrogance has no place in a constitutional democracy.
Natural justice demands that those affected by adverse decisions be heard. This principle is not a courtesy; it is a legal and moral obligation.
The timing and context of this decision also raises uncomfortable questions. WLSA has operated for over two decades, with its lawyers’ practising certificates routinely renewed by successive Law Society councils. There was no sudden discovery of illegality, no legislative amendment outlawing NGO legal practice. The abrupt change of heart appears arbitrary and vindictive, lending weight to allegations that this is less about the law and more about internal politics and control.
One cannot ignore the economic dimension. By forcing NGOs out of the courtroom, the Law Society effectively funnels legal work back to private practitioners. This is where the accusation of “lining pockets” becomes unavoidable. In a country where many lawyers already struggle for clients, denying NGOs the right to practise conveniently reduces competition at the direct expense of the poor. It is difficult to imagine a clearer conflict between professional self-interest and the public good.
The Law Society’s apparent reliance on pro bono (when a lawyer chooses to represent a client for free) services as a substitute for NGO legal aid is equally disingenuous. Pro bono work, while commendable, is voluntary, uneven and insufficient. It cannot replace the structured, institutional and community-based legal services provided by organisations like WLSA and Seinoli. To suggest otherwise is to indulge in comforting fiction while ignoring harsh reality.
More fundamentally, the decision stands on shaky constitutional ground. The right to equality before the law and the right to a fair trial are not abstract ideals; they require practical mechanisms to ensure that all citizens, regardless of wealth, can assert and defend their rights. When the state and its regulatory bodies erect barriers that make this impossible, they are in breach of both the letter and spirit of the Constitution.
If allowed to stand, this decision will have chilling consequences. Vulnerable litigants will abandon claims. Abusers and exploiters will act with greater impunity. Legal practitioners employed by NGOs will lose their jobs. Public confidence in the justice system will erode further. All this damage, inflicted not by lack of resources, but by a deliberate and unnecessary policy choice.
The constitutional challenge brought by WLSA and Seinoli is therefore not just about practising certificates. It is about the soul of our justice system. The courts must intervene decisively to halt this dangerous regression and reaffirm that the law exists to serve society, not the narrow interests of a professional elite.
The Law Society should reflect deeply on the path it has chosen. An institution entrusted with upholding justice should not be remembered for slamming the courthouse doors in the faces of the poor. In this instance, it has failed that trust, very badly!
Except in isolated cases, this is the same Law Society which takes little to no action against many of its crooked and thieving members who steal from their poor clients. Shame on every Law Society executive who took part in this crooked and corrupt decision.
Police inaction on crime baffling