…lawyer argues posting suspects’ images is unconstitutional
Moorosi Tsiane
PROMINENT lawyer, Advocate Lemohang Nzuzi, has dragged the Commissioner of Police, Borotho Matsoso, to court seeking M1.5 million compensation for posting his image on the Lesotho Mounted Police Service (LMPS) Facebook page following his arrest for drunken driving.
The posting of arrestees’ pictures on the LMPS Facebook page has stirred widespread public debate.
While some defend it as a transparency measure, others condemn the practice which they view as a violation of fundamental human rights.
Adv Nzuzi’s photo was uploaded to the LMPS Facebook page on 10 July 2025, prompting him to file a constitutional application on Tuesday.
He argues that the police’s actions violate Sections 11, 4(1)(b), 8, and 12 of the Constitution, which guarantee the rights to privacy, dignity, protection from degrading treatment, and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
He now seeks a declaration that the police’s practice of publishing suspects’ images on Facebook be declared unconstitutional. Additionally, he is asking the court for a mandatory interdict compelling Adv Matsoso to publicly retract the 10 July post and to redress the prejudice caused.
Adv Nzuzi also wants the police to be compelled to adopt and adhere to a digital security policy that would govern the use of social media platforms by law enforcement.
He further seeks M1.5 million in constitutional damages for the alleged violation of his rights.
The Officer Commanding Pitso Ground Police Station, the administrators of the LMPS Facebook page, the Lesotho Mounted Police Service, Adv Matsoso, the Minister of Local Government and Chieftainship, Home Affairs and Police Lebona Lephema, and the Attorney General Rapelang Motsieloa are cited as first to sixth respondents in the matter.
In his court papers, Adv Nzuzi argues that the police’s actions are part of a broader state-sanctioned practice that lacks adequate policy safeguards.
“I have been charged under Section 92 of the Lesotho Road Traffic Act for driving a motor vehicle on a public road while under the influence of alcohol or a drug to the extent that I was incapable of proper control. I was duly indicted, pleaded as charged, and sentenced to a fine of M1000,” Adv Nzuzi states.
“I respectfully aver that the systemic conduct of the LMPS in using its Facebook page to post alleged or actual offenders is not merely a reputational affront. It is a violation of constitutional rights such as privacy, dignity, and protection from degrading treatment, as enshrined in Sections 11, 4(1)(b), and 8.
“This police Facebook practice reflects a broader institutional failure or lack of safeguards and therefore presents a constitutional issue of public importance.”
He further argues that on various occasions, including on 10 July 2025, the LMPS published images and personal details of arrestees, including himself, before any formal charge, plea, or judicial determination.
“Such conduct amounts to public digital exposure that is unregulated, prejudicial, and constitutionally impermissible. It infringes on the right to respect for private and family life, the right to dignity, the freedom from inhuman or degrading treatment, and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.”
Adv Nzuzi contends that this case could serve as a landmark judgment, setting the digital boundaries for law enforcement and public communication, especially in the current age of rapid digital transformation where there is no clear policy framework to safeguard rights.
He also claims the Facebook post subjected him to public ridicule, stigma, and reputational harm.
“…By subjecting individuals to public ridicule, stigma, and reputational harm, as I have been in casu, Section 4(1)(b) on the right to dignity was violated, not merely by reputational damage, but through the symbolic erasure of my agency over how I am represented in public forums.”
He also argues that by posting his image without his consent, the LMPS violated Section 11 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to privacy.
“By associating my image with unproven allegations, the respondents unlawfully introduced my identity into the digital domain against my will and expressed preferences.”
In conclusion, Adv Nzuzi calls on the court to embrace a progressive and transformative approach in shaping how constitutional rights are interpreted and protected in a rapidly evolving digital age.
“This is no ordinary grievance — it raises profound questions about the conduct of state organs in digital spaces, and the erosion of fundamental rights through unchecked actions.”
