…..As DCEO fails to take Phakela to court after dramatic arrest
—-While gvt distances itself from the embarrassing debacle
By Moorosi Tsiane
After all its bravado in arresting Lesotho Times and Sunday Express Acting Editor, Mohalenyane Phakela, the Directorate on Corruption and Economic Offences (DCEO) failed to take him to court on Monday as it had threatened.
Instead, the agency claimed it was still awaiting a directive from the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). By the time of going to print last night, no such directive had been issued and Mr Phakela remained in suspense, not knowing whether he will eventually face charges.
This comes after DCEO agents seized Phakela last Friday, confiscated his two mobile phones, and detained him overnight at Maseru Central Police Station, accusing him of impersonating a DCEO officer to obtain a seemingly harmless letter from Toyota Maseru.
The DCEO only released him on Saturday amid mounting pressure, but continued to hold on to his phones until Monday.
Publisher’s response
Flo Piroro, spokesperson for Africa Media Holdings (publishers of the Lesotho Times and Sunday Express), lambasted the DCEO for bad faith and vowed the papers were ready to challenge the allegations in court.
“We are ready for the DCEO to take Mr Phakela to court so that we have an opportunity to expose their lie that our Acting Editor impersonated a DCEO official in obtaining a harmless letter from Maseru Toyota,” Ms Piroro said.
“There was no impersonation whatsoever. The letter was sent by a person who knows Mr Phakela very well, except that she erroneously copied her response to the DCEO. To detain and humiliate our Acting Editor over such a trivial matter shows the DCEO was acting in bad faith. If they don’t prosecute the case to provide us with any opportunity to expose tem for their lies, we will go to court on our own to hold them accountable…..Our lawyers are seized with the matter.
“No one is above the law including the DCEO itself and other law enforcement agencies that must act within the law in discharging their duties.
“If our Acting editor had done anything wrong, he should have been lawfully prosecuted without the humiliation of seizing his phones and subjected him to an overnight of unnecessary torture in a dirty cell. The DCEO acted unlawfully in seizing our editor’s phones. We will hold them accountable.”
Govt distances itself
Speaking for the first time since the arrest, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office, Limpho Tau, said the DCEO was an autonomous entity and the government cannot interfere in its operations.
“The government has no interest nor reason to direct the DCEO what to do and what not to do,” Mr Tau told the Lesotho Times. “But if the DCEO or any agency tramples upon any individual’s rights or breaches its own rules, then surely the government has an obligation to ensure that each Mosotho’s rights are respected.”
He added that the DCEO falls under the Ministry of Law and Justice, headed by Minister Richard Ramoeletsi, who should be approached for redress.
For his part, Mr Ramoeletsi said he was awaiting a report from the DCEO before commenting further. “They are autonomous, so I cannot interfere with how they are doing their work. I can’t comment on whether that was legal or not legal. I do not even have full facts. I am still waiting for the report for me to be able to comment,” he said.
An illegality?
Mr Phakela’s lawyer, Advocate Christopher Lephuthing, has condemned the DCEO’s conduct, saying seizing his client’s phones without a warrant was unlawful.
“He is a journalist. His mobile phones are privileged and protected by the law. They have violated his constitutional rights,” Adv Lephuthing said. “There are already established precedents that you cannot just seize a private citizen’s phone without a legally issued search warrant.”
He pointed to a 2023 Constitutional Court order barring state agencies from such seizures after the National Security Service (NSS) had illegally taken BNP leader Machesetsa Mofomobe’s phones in another case.
“We are going to object to any charges emanating from illegal actions being read in court. We cannot be expected to plead and endorse an illegality,” Adv Lephuthing said, adding that the DCEO appeared “desperate for an excuse to target Mr Phakela, harass him, and break down his spirit.”
Mixed signals and outrage
Mr Tau insisted the government expects all agencies to uphold constitutional rights, warning that action would be taken if any agency failed to meet that obligation.
At the same time, he criticised what he called “sensationalism” by sections of the media and politicians, arguing it was dangerous to link Phakela’s arrest to broader government repression or Lesotho’s fragile political stability.
“I was appalled that many, including the Sunday Express, as well as some politicians, interpret or give the perception that when such institutions act lawfully, it is the government that has orchestrated that,” he said.
But widespread outrage has continued at home and abroad, with local and international journalists condemning Phakela’s arrest as a violation of press freedom. Many fear it sends a chilling signal that Lesotho is regressing into repressive tendencies despite government assurances of reform.
At the time of going to press, the DCEO had yet to indicate its next step, leaving Mr Phakela — and his employers — in limbo.
But Ms Piroro emphasized that Mr Phakela and his employers were ready for a court if te DCEO wished to proceed.
“That will provide a platform to expose their unruliness and lay out the facts of this case. There was no impersonation whatsoever and the DCEO knows that. They only wanted to harass Mr Phakela because as their official (Senooe) said, they were unhappy about his previous reporting of the docket involving the theft of M109 million in tenders at the Ministry of Agriculture,” Ms Piroso said.
“Our reporters and editors are trained professionals. They don’t impersonate anyone. They always present themselves in their professional capacities…
“If indeed they (the DCEO) were told that Ntate Phakela had impersonated himself, then they were lied to. The facts will be explained in court..
“All indications are that they acted in bad faith though. They only wanted to breakdown Ntate Phakela and stop him from doing his work ”
