…as Tenth Amendment is challenged again
…heritage group wants original reforms bill restored
Moorosi Tsiane
HERITAGE and Basotho rights movement, Naka la Mohlomi, has approached the Constitutional Court seeking to overturn the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, blaming it for confusion and conflict within government.
The movement argues that Parliament unlawfully altered the original reforms bill prepared by the National Reforms Authority (NRA), and is now calling for the revival of the body.
It wants a declarator that Parliament was functus officio (no longer has authority over the matter) and should be barred from altering the substance of the Tenth and Eleventh Amendments. The movement also wants the court to declare the submission of the amended bill to the Senate and to the King for assent unconstitutional.
It further seeks to invalidate the appointments of Mr Tšoele and Dr Tšooana as Permanent Secretaries instead of Principal Secretaries, arguing that these were made under an unconstitutional framework.
In addition, the application calls for the revival of the NRA, arguing that its dissolution was arbitrary and undermined the unfinished reforms agenda. It also seeks to have the establishment of the National Reforms Transitional Office set aside as unconstitutional.
The National Reforms Authority was formally dissolved on April 30, 2022, following the expiry of its statutory mandate. The 35-member body, established to lead reforms in seven key sectors, ceased operations after attempts to extend its lifespan were rejected by the High Court, which ruled that extensions beyond the period set in the NRA Act were not permitted.
It further contends that all decisions flowing from the amendment, including recent senior government appointments, are invalid.
This, they argue, include appointments of, Mpopo Tšoele, as the Ministry of Local Government, Home Affairs, Chieftainship and Police Permanent Secretary, and Khothatso Tšooana as the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Agriculture, Food Security and Nutrition.
The application was filed this week by the movement’s founder, Moorosi Moshoeshoe, who argues that the amendment itself is invalid and that all decisions arising from it must be declared null and void ab initio.
Central to the case is the claim that the amendment fundamentally altered the structure of authority within government ministries, creating uncertainty and conflict.
“By placing the supervision of the Principal Secretary under the Government Secretary as opposed to the Minister, the Act has created a chaotic situation where the relationship of the Minister and the Principal Secretary is uncertain, undefined and open to more than one possible interpretation,” Mr Moshoeshoe states in court papers.
He says this structural shift has already produced real consequences, citing the standoff between Messrs Tšoele and Lephema as evidence of a system in disarray.
According to the application, the two are locked in a deadlock over the boundaries of their administrative powers—an outcome the movement argues was inevitable under the new legal framework.
Mr Moshoeshoe is joined in the legal challenge by Lesiamo Molapo and former NRA chairperson Pelele Letsoela. The respondents include the Southern African Development Community (SADC), its facilitator to Lesotho Cyril Ramaphosa, His Majesty the King, Speaker of the National Assembly Tlohang Sekhamane, Senate President Mamonaheng Mokitimi, Law Minister Richard Ramoeletsi, Prime Minister Sam Matekane, the National Assembly, the Senate, the National Reforms Transitional Office (NRTO), the Public Service Commission, and Attorney General Rapelang Motsieloa, among others.
At the heart of the dispute is how the Tenth Amendment was passed. Mr Moshoeshoe argues that Parliament unlawfully altered the contents of the original reforms bill produced by the NRA, effectively discarding the will of the people expressed through a nationwide consultation process.
After completing its work, the NRA submitted an Omnibus Bill to the Minister of Law and Justice for tabling before Parliament. However, the 10th Parliament failed to pass the Bill in its original form. Instead, on 6 May 2024, Minister Ramoeletsi introduced two separate bills—the Tenth and Eleventh Amendments—dealing with provisions requiring different voting thresholds.
“Unfortunately, the National Assembly has made significant and material changes to the contents of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, literally obliterating what was agreed in the NRA, by deleting, rejecting, distorting and modifying certain sections of the Bill,” Mr Moshoeshoe argues.
He maintains that these changes undermined public participation, a right protected under Section 20 of the Constitution, and breached the agreement reached during the reforms process.
“We regard this act as a breach of the terms of the agreement reached at the NRA. Further, the National Assembly purported to undermine and alter its own delegated powers contrary to Section 70(2) of the Constitution. Parliament was functus officio—it had exhausted its powers with respect to the substance of this law,” he submits.
The application further argues that Parliament acted ultra vires by enacting amendments that required prior public participation but were instead introduced unilaterally after the fact.
“The changes brought about by Parliament mean it acted beyond its authority by enacting a law which, on constitutional principle, required prior public participation. Such amendments, done ex post facto, render prior consultations meaningless,” he states.
A key point of contention is the removal of a clause in the original bill that clearly defined the relationship between ministers and Principal Secretaries. Under the initial provision, Principal Secretaries were subject to the general supervision of their respective ministers. Its removal in the final Act effectively shifted oversight to the Government Secretary.
Mr Moshoeshoe argues that this change has disrupted the chain of command within ministries, creating overlapping authority and inevitable conflict.
“This appears to be a case of one party to a contract having the free will to unilaterally change the terms of a signed agreement without the consent of the other party,” he argues.
He insists that the only legitimate way to overturn the outcomes of the national reforms process would have been through a referendum, not parliamentary alterations.
“The only acceptable legal mechanism that can constitutionally overturn the wishes of the people, in a democratic society like Lesotho, would be a national referendum on the subject matter. The National Assembly has no such powers,” he says.
The application also raises concerns about the financial and institutional investment in the reforms process. It states that the government spent at least M35 million annually during the NRA phase, while international partners such as the European Union and the United Nations Development Programme contributed additional funding.
SADC also played a key role by providing technical support through its facilitation team led by South African President Cyril Ramaphosa and Justice Dikgang Moseneke.
Subsequently, the Tenth Amendment was gazetted and presented to SADC in August 2025, leading to Lesotho being removed from the SADC Troika agenda. Nonetheless, opposition parties rejected the passage of the Tenth Amendment, saying it was the government’s unilateral decision.
The Tenth Amendment has since been challenged in court by activist group, Section II, and is still pending before court.
Mr Moshoeshoe argues in his court papers that the resources used to draw the Omnibus Bill, and the extensive public consultations that accompanied them, have effectively been wasted by Parliament’s unilateral actions.
Mr Moshoeshoe and his co-applicants are seeking several court orders, including a declaration that Parliament was functus officio (had no authority over the reforms) and should be barred from altering the substance of the Tenth and Eleventh Amendments. They also want the court to declare the submission of the amended bill to the Senate and to the King for assent unconstitutional.
They further seek to invalidate the appointments of Mr Tšoele and Dr Tšooana as Principal Secretaries, arguing that these were made under an unconstitutional framework.
In addition, the application calls for the revival of the NRA, arguing that its dissolution was arbitrary and undermined the unfinished reforms agenda. It also seeks to have the establishment of the National Reforms Transitional Office set aside as unconstitutional.
The National Reforms Authority was formally dissolved on April 30, 2022, following the expiry of its statutory mandate. The 35-member body, established to lead reforms in seven key sectors, ceased operations after attempts to extend its lifespan were rejected by the High Court, which ruled that extensions beyond the period set in the NRA Act were not permitted.
