…as he continues to fight for his reinstatement
Moorosi Tsiane
A FORMER National Security Service (NSS) officer, Montoeli Ramaipato, has taken his 12-year battle for reinstatement to the High Court, arguing that he was unlawfully transferred and subsequently dismissed after challenging allegations that he was politically affiliated.
Mr Ramaipato is seeking an order reviewing and setting aside the decision of the then Director General of the NSS, Mohlolo Lerotholi, to dismiss him, arguing that the dismissal was procedurally unfair, irregular and unlawful.
He is also asking the court to order his reinstatement to his substantive position and direct the respondents to pay him his accrued salaries and benefits dating back to the period when, he argues, he should have been reinstated.
The dispute dates back to October 2014, when Mr Ramaipato was allegedly accused of being politically affiliated during a departmental meeting for the Maseru district.
According to his founding affidavit, the accusation was made on 20 October 2014 by then Regional Security Officer, ‘Makhotso Mathiase.
Mr Ramaipato said he considered the allegation serious enough to seek legal assistance and instructed his lawyers to issue a demand for damages for defamation.
“I was accused of being politically affiliated, which was condemned by the service. I considered the allegation serious and sought legal advice because it affected my reputation and standing as an officer,” Mr Ramaipato said in his affidavit.
A demand letter was subsequently served on the officer on 23 October 2014, with Mr Ramaipato demanding M2 million in compensation.
But the matter soon turned against him. Six days after the demand letter was served, Mr Ramaipato received a show-cause letter Mr Lerotholi, demanding an explanation as to why he had allegedly instituted a civil case against a fellow member of the service instead of following internal grievance procedures.
Mr Ramaipato denied that he had instituted a civil case.
“I did not institute a civil case against the officer. What I did was simply serve a demand letter through my lawyers,” he said.
He communicated this position to the director in a letter dated 7 November 2014.
However, on 18 November 2014, he received another letter from Mr Lerotholi, requiring him to make representations within seven days on the same issue.
Mr Ramaipato responded by referring the Director General to his earlier response, maintaining that he had not instituted legal proceedings but had merely issued a demand.
The matter subsequently escalated, with the NSS appointing a board of enquiry to investigate the alleged misconduct.
Mr Ramaipato was then served with charges alleging that he had failed to follow the grievance procedures prescribed under the National Security Services Regulations of 2000.
He was directed to appear before the board on 12 December 2014.
But, according to Mr Ramaipato, the hearing never took place.
“The hearing contemplated in the charge letter never took place. Instead, what followed was an exchange of correspondence between the NSS and my legal representatives,” he said.
Then came what he described as an unlawful transfer.
On 19 December 2014, Mr Ramaipato was served with a letter purporting to redeploy him to Semonkong, approximately 82 kilometres from his previous station, with immediate effect.
He challenged the legality of the transfer, arguing that the official who issued the letter did not have the legal authority to transfer him.
“I submit that the purported transfer was invalid and grossly irregular. The law did not give the officer who issued that letter the authority to transfer me,” he said.
His case is that, under Section 10 of the National Security Services Act of 1998, the power to appoint, promote, demote, transfer or discharge an NSS member rested with the Minister, acting on the advice of the Director General.
He further argued that the Director General had to consider recommendations of the Staff Board when advising the Minister on appointments, confirmations, promotions and demotions.
According to Mr Ramaipato, there had been no recommendation from the Staff Board for his transfer.
He therefore argued that the official who purportedly transferred him had acted outside the powers granted by law.
“I submit that the DSO usurped the powers of the Minister and acted without any legal basis. There was no recommendation from the Staff Board for me to be transferred in the first place,” he said.
Mr Ramaipato also argued that he should have been given proper notice before being transferred to a duty station more than 40 kilometres from his previous workplace.
He relied on Regulation 35(5) of the Public Service Regulations, which generally requires at least three months’ notice where an officer is transferred to a duty station 40 kilometres or more from the old station, unless an immediate transfer is necessary for operational requirements.
“The transfer is invalid for non-observance of the notice period required by law,” he argued.
He said there was nothing in the transfer letter indicating that the immediate transfer had been necessary because of operational requirements.
Despite his objections, Mr Ramaipato said he was eventually dismissed after failing to report to the new station.
He was first served with another show-cause letter requiring him to explain why he should not be dismissed for absenteeism from his new workplace without leave.
He was subsequently discharged from the NSS.
“I protested against the transfer, but my pleas fell on deaf ears. I was subsequently dismissed for not reporting to the new duty station,” he said.
With his employment terminated, Mr Ramaipato took the matter to then Ombudsman, Advocate Tšeliso Mokoko, now a High Court judge, challenging both the transfer and his subsequent dismissal.
The Ombudsman eventually found in his favour and, in a report dated 7 February 2020, recommended his reinstatement.
The Ombudsman specifically questioned the authority of the DSO Maseru to transfer Mr Ramaipato.
“The Ombudsman found that the transfer letter was authored by Mr Ranchobe, the DSO Maseru, who did not in law have the authority to transfer the complainant, as contemplated in the National Security Service (delegation of Powers) Notice 2000.
“I find that the purported transfer of the complainant from Roma to Semonkong with immediate effect was wrong, as the complainant was not given a reasonable time within which to prepare himself for the transfer,” the Ombudsman ruled, ordering the NSS to reinstate Mr Ramaipato within three months.
But despite the finding, Mr Ramaipato said he was not reinstated. Instead, the matter eventually reached the National Assembly.
A report issued by Parliament on 7 February 2022, attached to his court papers, resolved that Mr Ramaipato should be paid his terminal benefits.
He argued that this decision failed to properly address the central issue—whether he should have been reinstated after the Ombudsman found that the transfer leading to his dismissal was unlawful.
“Once it was found that both the decision to transfer and dismiss me were unlawful, I should have been reinstated as recommended by the Ombudsman,” he said.
Mr Ramaipato said he had spent years pursuing the matter through government offices, believing that the issue would eventually be resolved without litigation.
By the time he received the parliamentary report in 2022, he said, he had already been out of employment for approximately eight years and had exhausted his financial resources.
“I had been out of employment for about eight years and literally had no financial resources to ventilate my rights any further,” he said.
He subsequently returned to Parliament seeking reconsideration of the matter and was allegedly advised that his complaint would be looked into.
Following the formation of a new government in October 2022, Mr Ramaipato said he also approached then Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office, Limpho Tau, who allegedly promised to assist him.
Throughout 2023, he said, he repeatedly moved between Mr Tau’s office and that of the Clerk of the National Assembly in an effort to have the matter resolved.
It was only around May 2024, he said, that the Clerk advised him to approach the courts because Parliament could not revisit its own decision.
Mr Ramaipato then approached his current attorneys, who agreed to represent him pro bono.
A letter of demand was subsequently sent to the NSS Director General on 24 May 2024, raising the same issues.
Mr Ramaipato now asks the High Court to review and set aside his dismissal, order his reinstatement within one month and direct the respondents to release his accrued salaries and benefits in accordance with the Ombudsman’s recommendations.
He also seeks an order declaring the decision directing the payment of terminal benefits without first addressing his reinstatement to be irregular and setting it aside.
For Mr Ramaipato, the case is ultimately about more than the loss of his job.
“I have spent years pursuing reinstatement after the Ombudsman found that the transfer which ultimately led to my dismissal was unlawful. My position is that I should not have been dismissed for refusing to comply with a transfer that was itself unlawful,” he said.
He asks the court to condone the delay in bringing the application, arguing that he had spent years pursuing administrative remedies and had repeatedly been assured that his complaint would be addressed.
The matter is set to proceed before Justice Molefi Makara today.
