. . .As showdown looms over limits of parliamentary powers
Moorosi Tsiane
THE Constitutional Court (ConCourt) has interdicted Parliament’s watchdog Public Accounts Committee (PAC) from probing two top executives from the Queen Mamohato Memorial Hospital (QMMH), setting the stage for a bruising showdown over the limits of the legislature’s authority.
The Constitutional Court, on Monday this week interdicted the PAC from questioning QMMH Managing Director, Dr ’Makhoase Ranyali, and Deputy Managing Director for Human Capital, Planning and Contracts, Thenjiwe Dlangamandla, pending the final determination of a constitutional challenge they have lodged against the committee.
Dr Ranyali and Ms Dlangamandla approached the Constitutional Court last week seeking, among others, the removal of PAC chairperson ’Machabana Lemphane-Letsie, whom they accuse of being “corrupt” and therefore “unfit” to preside over a committee mandated to investigate alleged graft.
They also asked the court to stop any PAC proceedings against them until their case is heard to finality.
The matter was heard by a three-member Constitutional Court bench comprising Chief Justice Sakoane Sakoane and Justices Fumane Khabo and Moneuoa Kopo.
Advocate (Adv) Christopher Lephuthing appeared for the QMMH executives, while Advocate Maletsatsi Kao-Theoha opposed the application on behalf of the respondents.
Clerk of the National Assembly, Advocate Fine Maema, PAC, Director General of the Directorate on Corruption and Economic Offences (DCEO), Brigadier Mantso Sello, Ministry of Health, Auditor General and the Attorney General, Adv Rapelang Motsieloa, are cited as first to sixth respondents in the matter.
Seeking that the matter should be heard on an urgent basis, Adv Lephuthing argued that his clients’ constitutional liberties were being violated by the PAC, justifying the court’s immediate intervention.
He told the court that Dr Ranyali and Ms Dlangamandla were summoned to appear before the PAC on the understanding that they would be questioned strictly on issues arising from the Auditor-General’s report for the financial year ending March 2022.
However, he said, once they appeared before the committee, the scope of questioning shifted dramatically.
“The applicants were summoned to attend PAC proceedings with a clear scope that they were to answer questions on the Auditor-General’s report (for the year) ending March 2022. When they appeared, they were interrogated on extraneous issues which were not part of the stated mandate,” Adv Lephuthing submitted.
He argued that the PAC had strayed from its constitutional role by venturing into matters of administrative conduct rather than confining itself to financial issues arising from the Auditor-General’s findings.
“The PAC deviated from its mandate. The digression amounts to administrative overreach which must be interdicted by this court,” he said.
Adv Lephuthing further told the court that when his clients requested that questions be put to them in writing so that they could respond formally, the PAC, instead, issued a warrant for their arrest.
“The warrant issued on December 10, 2025 directs that the applicants be arrested and brought before the same PAC which is accused of administrative overreach. The committee seeks to continue interrogations outside the agreed scope, and that is fundamentally wrong,” he said.
He argued that Section 11 of the Parliamentary Powers and Privileges Act had been wrongly invoked, insisting that the manner in which the PAC conducted the questioning was demeaning and violated his clients’ right to dignity.
“The effect of the warrant is to compel my clients to answer irrelevant and humiliating questions. This court must intervene urgently because the applicants cannot be forced to submit to unlawful questioning,” he submitted.
Adv Lephuthing also argued that some of the issues raised by the PAC were already under active investigation by the DCEO, rendering the committee’s actions a breach of the separation of powers.
“The DCEO is already seized with criminal investigations into some of these issues. For the PAC to compel the applicants to answer on the same matters amounts to overreach and an abuse of power,” he said.
He added that the line of questioning appeared designed to tarnish his clients’ reputations through “demeaning” interrogation that infringed their constitutional right to dignity.
“The liberty of my clients is at stake,” he said, urging the court to stay the PAC proceedings and review and set aside the warrant of arrest.
Adv Lephuthing also asked the court to order the Clerk of the National Assembly, Advocate Maema, to dispatch the record and Hansard of parliamentary proceedings relating to the appointment of Ms Lemphane-Letsie as PAC chairperson, as well as the Hansard of the PAC sittings held on 9 and 10 December 2025.
Ms Lemphane-Letsie’s legitimacy as PAC chair is being contested because of the corruption allegations she is currently facing in the courts.
In opposing the application, Adv Kao-Theoha argued that the PAC was acting squarely within its legal mandate and that the application failed to meet the threshold for urgency.
She told the court that Section 11 of the Parliamentary Powers and Privileges Act expressly empowered the PAC to issue warrants of arrest against individuals who fail to honour its summonses.
“We oppose the urgency. Rule 15 of the Civil Litigation Rules requires that urgent applications be justified, and there is no basis for urgency in this matter,” she argued.
She conceded that a warrant had been issued at the PAC’s instruction but said it had not been executed and had effectively been placed in abeyance.
“The warrant was properly issued in terms of the law. It has not been executed and remains suspended. There was therefore no justification for the applicants to rush to court,” she said.
Adv Kao-Theoha also rejected claims that the inquiry was personal, insisting that the PAC was probing financial management at QMMH, not the applicants as individuals.
“The applicants are misleading the court by suggesting that the inquiry is about them personally. The proceedings relate to the financial management of QMMH,” she submitted.
After considering arguments from both sides, the Constitutional Court ruled that the matter was indeed urgent and granted the interim relief sought by Dr Ranyali and Ms Dlangamandla, effectively freezing the PAC inquiry for now.
Dr Ranyali and Ms Dlangamandla are seeking an order nullifying Ms Lemphane-Letsie’s role as PAC chairman. They argue she is unfit to lead the PAC as she is presently in court over corruption allegations herself.
Ms Lemphane-Letsie was in May 2024 charged by the Directorate on Corruption and Economic Offences (DCEO) for allegedly abusing her powers while serving as Principal Secretary in 2018/19 and, defrauding the state of about M5.6 million in relation to a tender for the supply of Resource Centre Park homes for livestock registration equipment.
Dr Ranyali and Ms Dlangamandla contend that this case – which is yet to be finalised in the courts – renders Ms Lempane-Letsie “unfit”to lead the PAC.
They have also taken umbrage with how proceedings at the PAC are conducted and the overly adversarial style of Ms Lemphane-Letsie and her colleagues. Ms Lemphane-Letsie is accused of ridiculing and humiliating senior government officials who appear before the PAC even as she faces corruption allegations herself.
Instead of seeking information in a professional manner from officials appearing before the PAC, they are instead scandalised and ridiculed through Ms Lemphane-Letsie’s “unprofessional behaviour”, Dr Ranyali and Ms Dlangamandla contends. In fact, officials are convicted by the PAC before they have had their day in court.
“…. Hon. Machabana Letsie-Lemphane interprets the law to say she is the only one who must be presumed innocent until proven guilty and does not care about the potential damage to the reputation of people she interrogates at PAC. I do not agree with her approach of self-importance…,” states Dr Ranyali in her affidavit.
The main application is scheduled to be heard on 17 February 2026.
