. . . files court challenge against Sekhamane
Moorosi Tsiane
EMBATTLED Basotho Action Party (BAP) leader, Professor Nqosa Mahao, has filed a High Court application challenging National Assembly Speaker Tlohang Sekhamane’s decision to reject his attempt to withdraw the party from the governing coalition.
The legal action follows two rulings by Mr Sekhamane; one on 29 November 2024, dismissing Prof Mahao’s attempt to pull BAP out of the coalition government; and another on 9 May 2025, which dismissed his bid to replace Tebello Kibane as chairperson of the party’s parliamentary caucus.
In his application, Prof Mahao accuses Mr Sekhamane of unlawfully blocking his decision to withdraw BAP from the ruling coalition after he was dismissed as Energy Minister by Prime Minister Sam Matekane in November last year.
This legal battle unfolds against the backdrop of a rift among the six BAP MPs. Four of them; Motlatsi Maqelepo, ‘Mamoipone Senauoane, Hilda Vanrooyen and Mr Kibane, have rejected Prof Mahao’s leadership and his attempt to pull the party out of Mr Matekane’s coalition government.
Prof Mahao maintains that the four MPs were suspended from the party following a Court of Appeal ruling in his favour, therefore no longer represent BAP. He insists he is the legitimate chair of the BAP parliamentary caucus, with Ms Taole as secretary.
However, Mr Sekhamane rejected this assertion, stating that Mr Kibane and Ms Vanrooyen are still recognised as chairperson and secretary of the BAP caucus, respectively, in line with parliamentary procedures. He explicitly refused to acknowledge Prof Mahao and Ms Taole in those roles.
Now, Prof Mahao is fiercely challenging the Speaker’s rulings.
In court papers filed this week, he urges the court to overturn what he describes as “illegal and unlawful” decisions by Mr Sekhamane, arguing the decisions constitute an abuse of power and a violation of party autonomy.
In a strongly worded affidavit, Prof Mahao takes direct aim at Mr Sekhamane, accusing him of drawing legal conclusions without citing any legal authority.
“Yet another glaring point of contestation is that the Speaker claimed that belonging to a party caucus is an inalienable right of a member. He proceeded to state, erroneously in my respectful view, that the executive of a party has no authority over the member,” Prof Mahao states.
“Again, no authority — statutory, judicial or scholarly — was provided in support of this erroneous conclusion. I wish to take the court into my confidence and assert that experience in diverse jurisdictions shows that parties have routinely disciplined their members by imposing sanctions, including forfeiture of membership in the caucus, and this is without prejudice to the legislator’s status as a member of the National Assembly.”
He argues that the Speaker is wrong to conclude that a political party cannot remove its members from its caucus.
“This is the exclusive preserve of the party in question, to which the Speaker of the National Assembly is under an obligation to yield without equivocation.”
Prof Mahao further accuses Mr Sekhamane of a “ghastly overreach” into BAP’s internal affairs, stressing that the BAP constitution explicitly grants him, as party leader, the power to direct the party’s policy in Parliament.
He rejects the notion that MPs are automatically members of a caucus simply because their names appear on the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) list, pointing out that the concept of a “caucus” has no basis in Lesotho’s parliamentary law.
“I respectfully aver that the Speaker is thereby guilty of ghastly overreach by interfering with the internal arrangements of the applicant in so far as its designation of its membership in the caucus before the National Assembly.
“According to Article 6.6.6 of the BAP Constitution, the leader of the party shall direct and supervise policy objectives of the party in the National Assembly.”
Prof Mahao contends that the Speaker’s ruling implies that once the IEC submits names to Parliament, those members automatically become caucus members by right.
He claims the view is unsupported by the Constitution, the National Assembly Electoral Act, the Parliamentary Powers and Privileges Act, or any parliamentary standing orders.
“There is no mention of a body styled ‘caucus’ in any of these instruments,” he insists.
He stresses that the BAP constitution outlines the structure and governance of its caucus, its relationship with the party executive, and the authority to direct and discipline its members — matters that have nothing to do with parliamentary regulation, but everything to do with internal party discipline and political coherence in the legislature.
“The BAP constitution… spells out the relationship between executive members of the party and the caucus, including powers of direction and discipline. This is completely unrelated to the regulation and governance of the National Assembly per se, but concerns the delegation of party members and their active roles in projecting party policy in the legislature, in line with the party’s institutional framework.”
Prof Mahao has therefore asked the court to declare Mr Sekhamane’s 29 November and 9 May 2025 rulings as unlawful and to affirm that BAP officially exited the coalition, effectively positioning it as an opposition party.
