Moorosi Tsiane
THE governance turmoil engulfing the National University of Lesotho (NUL) has taken another dramatic turn after suspended Registrar, Liteboho Maqalika-Lerotholi, approached the High Court to challenge a disciplinary committee’s refusal to refer constitutional questions arising from her disciplinary hearing for judicial determination.
Ms Maqalika-Lerotholi wants the court to review and set aside the committee’s 10 July 2026 decision declining to invoke Section 128 of Lesotho’s Constitution, which allows constitutional questions arising before a tribunal to be referred to the High Court for interpretation.
Her application follows her suspension by NUL Vice-Chancellor, Professor Isaac Olusola Fajana, on 11 May 2026, barely weeks after the suspension of Pro-Vice Chancellor, Prof Kananelo Mosito, developments that have further exposed deep divisions at the country’s premier institution of higher learning.
Following her suspension, Prof Fajana announced that Ms Maqalika-Lerotholi would face disciplinary proceedings over allegations of misconduct, insubordination and conduct prejudicial to the interests of the university. He also appointed Dr Lipalesa Mathe as Acting Registrar pending the outcome of the disciplinary process.
When Ms Maqalika-Lerotholi appeared before the disciplinary committee on 1 July, she immediately challenged its composition, arguing that the three-member panel consisted entirely of men, contrary to the university’s Gender Equality and Equity Policy (2024-2029) and the national Constitution’s guarantees of equality and non-discrimination.
She asked the committee to refer the constitutional questions arising from her objection to the High Court.
Nine days later, the committee dismissed both her objection and her referral request, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction to refer constitutional questions to the High Court.
Dissatisfied with that decision, she has now launched urgent review proceedings in the High Court.
In her founding affidavit, Ms Maqalika-Lerotholi argues that the disciplinary committee acted unlawfully by refusing to refer the constitutional issues.
“This application is concerned with the legality and lawfulness of the respondents refusing to refer the constitutional questions to the High Court pursuant to Section 128 of the Constitution.
“On 1 July 2026, I appeared before the all-male panel aforesaid and objected to the constitution of the panel and requested that the constitutional questions as to the interpretation of the Constitution be referred to the High Court.”
According to her court papers, the disciplinary committee comprises chairperson Shale Shale and members Phakiso Mochochoko and Moteka Mohale – all men.
She argues that the committee’s composition contradicts NUL’s own gender policy, which acknowledges that governance and management structures at the university remain heavily male-dominated and commits the institution to promoting gender parity and inclusive decision-making.
Among the constitutional questions she wants the High Court to determine is whether appointing an all-male disciplinary panel to hear charges against a senior female employee violates the constitutional rights to equality, dignity, equal protection of the law and a fair disciplinary process.
She also wants the court to determine whether such a panel breaches the university’s constitutional obligation to advance gender equality and whether it undermines the constitutional value of responsiveness.
According to her affidavit, NUL opposed the referral request, arguing that only tribunals established by statute have the authority under Section 128 to refer constitutional questions to the High Court. The disciplinary committee accepted that argument and dismissed her application on jurisdictional grounds.
However, Ms Maqalika-Lerotholi contends the committee fundamentally misunderstood the law.
“The relevant questions arise during the disciplinary proceedings and are serious and substantial in nature and require referral to the High Court for interpretation.
“The refusal by NUL to refer such questions, despite my request, is reviewable and stands to be set aside and corrected.”
She argues that the disciplinary committee qualifies as an adjudicatory tribunal and therefore has both the jurisdiction and constitutional obligation to refer constitutional questions to the High Court.
“I am advised and believe same to be true that the decision to dismiss the request for referral for want of jurisdiction is irregular, unlawful and invalid because NUL is an adjudicatory tribunal in terms of Section 12(8) of the Constitution.”
She further argues that the committee committed a reviewable error of law.
“The panel misunderstood or failed to understand the law and that requirement to refer is not only addressed to the tribunal established by Act of Parliament. In doing so the panel committed a reviewable irregularity.”
Ms Maqalika-Lerotholi also argues that she cannot wait until the disciplinary proceedings have concluded before seeking judicial intervention because the process itself is constitutionally defective.
“I may not wait for the completion of the disciplinary process… the very composition of the disciplinary committee is in violation of the Constitution and of the University’s own policy.”
She warns that allowing the proceedings to continue before the current panel risks irreversible injustice.
“Any decision that the committee may hand down against me may amount to gross injustice, which may not be cured by an appellate judicial body.”
She also accuses the university of failing to practise the gender transformation principles it publicly espouses.
“Undergoing the disciplinary process before the currently constituted all-male panel amounts to gross irregularity and gross injustice on my part.
“The composition of the disciplinary committee and its processes lack the gender-responsive impartiality required by law.”
Ms Maqalika-Lerotholi argues that although the panel may appear gender-neutral, it in fact perpetuates institutional gender inequality.
“The constitution of an all-male disciplinary panel to hear charges against me, a senior female administrator, is the antithesis of the commitments stated above. It is gender-neutral only in appearance. In substance, it disregards gender equality, ignores gendered institutional power, and reproduces the very male dominance which the Policy and the Constitution as amended undertake to transform.”
She further accuses the university of contradicting its own publicly adopted policies.
“The University cannot, on the one hand, proclaim itself committed to gender transformation, and on the other hand, constitute an all-male disciplinary tribunal to sit in judgment over a woman in senior leadership.”
She argues that every appearance before the panel compounds the alleged constitutional violation.
“I will not be afforded substantial redress in due course… my rights and University obligations will be trampled upon and rendered nugatory every day the disciplinary tribunal continues to preside over the proceedings.”
Finally, she warns that allowing the disciplinary hearing to proceed before the High Court determines the constitutional issues would effectively defeat the purpose of her application.
“Should the disciplinary proceedings proceed and be completed, this application will be rendered academic and moot, and no protection may be afforded to me either in the interim or under this application.”
The High Court is expected to hear the matter on Monday.
