Mahloko demands independent hearing
FORMER Lepereng Olympafrica Centre (LOC) manager and project coordinator, Khotso Mahloko, has demanded that the Lesotho National Olympic Committee (LNOC) clarify his sporting status and convene an independent disciplinary tribunal where he can challenge the evidence that led to his dismissal in March 2025.
Mahloko accuses the LNOC of using “safeguarding concerns” to terminate his employment without giving him a fair hearing or subjecting him to a formal sporting disciplinary process.
He has petitioned the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the International Olympafrica Foundation (FINO) for intervention, arguing that the procedures followed in his case were flawed and denied him an opportunity to defend himself against the allegations.
In a follow-up petition dated 5 October 2026 and addressed to LNOC president, Letsatsi Ntsibolane, Mahloko said his dismissal from employment and any sporting sanctions against him were separate matters that required distinct processes.
He wants the LNOC to formally clarify whether he is subject to any sporting restrictions and, if so, their nature and duration.
“In all legitimate safe sport frameworks globally, an investigative report must lead to a formal disciplinary phase where a specific sporting sanction (with a defined validity period and expiry date) is adjudicated,” Mahloko wrote.
Independent investigation sought
In an earlier petition to Ntsibolane dated 1 September 2026, he called for an independent investigation into the safeguarding inquiry that preceded his dismissal, alleging inaccuracies in the findings and violations of due process.
Mahloko claims he was not given full details of the allegations, witness statements and other evidence needed to prepare his defence. He also accuses the LNOC executive of failing to convene an independent disciplinary tribunal or arbitration panel as required under Article 20 of its Constitution.
“The Executive completely failed to convene an independent disciplinary tribunal or arbitration panel,” he stated.
He further challenges the credibility of the investigation report, alleging that it contains fabricated dates, misleading accounts of witness testimony and misclassified personnel.
Mahloko also questions the use of witnesses reportedly employed in 2022 and 2024 to corroborate events said to have occurred in 2019, arguing that they could not have had firsthand knowledge of events predating their employment.
Another grievance concerns the release of the investigation report. Mahloko alleges that the LNOC withheld the final report from March 2025 until June 2025 while allowing him only seven days to appeal his dismissal.
He argues that the delay undermined his ability to prepare an effective appeal and prejudiced his subsequent efforts to seek relief through the Directorate of Dispute Prevention and Resolution (DDPR).
Mahloko is demanding an audit of the investigation report and related records, an independent disciplinary hearing and accountability for any officials found to have breached due-process requirements.
Safeguarding investigation
The LNOC terminated his employment following an investigation conducted between February and March 2025 into safeguarding concerns raised in December 2024.
The investigation involved interviews with athletes, parents, current and former volunteers, LNOC staff and Mahloko himself.
Its findings included allegations of repeated abuse, sexual misconduct spanning 2016 to 2025, financial exploitation and misappropriation. The report also raised concerns about alleged physical assaults on volunteers, intimidation, inconsistencies in the distribution of transport allowances and preferential treatment of certain volleyball players.
The LNOC concluded that Mahloko’s conduct amounted to gross misconduct and terminated his employment in accordance with its Policy and Procedures Manual and provisions of the Labour Act 2024 cited in his dismissal letter.
Mahloko disputes the procedures followed in reaching that decision, insisting that he was not afforded an adequate opportunity to challenge the allegations.
Appeal to international bodies
In a letter dated 26 September 2026 addressed to IOC’s Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer, Mahloko sought an independent review of the alleged procedural violations.
He urged the IOC to assume direct responsibility for the matter, arguing that domestic mechanisms had failed to provide an impartial resolution.
He also proposed referring the dispute to an independent tribunal, potentially through the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) or an ad hoc IOC panel, to review the safeguarding report and examine the evidence.
Mahloko has separately petitioned FINO, seeking an investigation into what he describes as procedural irregularities and governance failures surrounding his dismissal.
CAS appeal dismissed
However, his previous attempt to challenge the investigation report at CAS was unsuccessful. The appeal, which he filed on 29 September 2026, was dismissed the following day because it was filed outside the prescribed time limit.
In correspondence to Mahloko dated 30 September 2026, CAS said the report he sought to challenge had been issued more than 21 days before he filed his statement of appeal. Under Article R49 of the Code of Sports-related Arbitration, appeals are generally subject to a 21-day deadline unless another period applies.
The court deemed his appeal manifestly late and ruled that the matter would not proceed. It also stated that the decision was final and that further submissions on the issue would not be considered.
Despite the setback, Mahloko continues to press for an independent review and a formal disciplinary process through which he can challenge the evidence against him.
Efforts to obtain comment from the LNOC were unsuccessful. Ntsibolane indicated that the committee would be able to engage on the matter after its 25th Annual General Meeting, scheduled for 25 October at AVANI Lesotho.
