…as court refuses to treat her application as urgent
Moorosi Tsiane
SUSPENDED High Court Judge, ’Maseforo Mahase, has suffered an early setback in her attempt to overturn her suspension, as the High Court declined to treat her application as urgent.
Justice Sekake Malebanye struck her constitutional application off the urgent roll on Monday, ruling that there was no justification to fast-track the case.
Justice Mahase — suspended on 4 November 2025 — approached the court seeking to stop what she describes as an unlawful and unconstitutional suspension.
Her suspension followed the appointment of a three-member tribunal on 13 October 2025, chaired by Justice Mankhambira Charles Ching’anyi Mkandawire of Malawi, with Justices Sylvester Salufi Mainga from Namibia and David Mangota from Zimbabwe as members.
Through her lawyer, Advocate Katiso Nhlapo, Justice Mahase argued that the matter should be heard urgently because it raises constitutional questions central to the rule of law.
Chief Justice Sakoane Sakoane, His Majesty King Letsie III, Justices Mkandawire, Mainga and Mangota, the Judicial Service Commission, and Attorney General Rapelang Motsieloa are cited as respondents.
Advocate Nhlapo told the court that the matter concerns the lawfulness of suspending or removing a High Court judge and therefore requires swift intervention.
He argued that delays would harm the Constitution, undermine judicial independence, and erode public confidence in the courts.
“…delay in resolving such issues causes immediate and ongoing harm to the Constitution itself and to the public interest,” he submitted.
However, Advocate Rudie Cronje, representing the respondents, countered that they had not been given sufficient time to prepare, having only received the papers last Thursday. He further argued that the matter was not urgent.
“…the application was received only by the Chief Justice and His Majesty on Thursday. My Lord, we still had to consult, take instructions, and file papers,” he said.
Adv Cronje maintained that the matter had been rushed without justification and insisted that the issues raised were procedural rather than constitutional.
When the two sides failed to agree on whether the matter warranted urgency, Justice Malebanye temporarily stood the case down to allow further consultation.
The hearing resumed around midday, with both parties informing the court that they could not reach a consensus, except on the point that constitutional matters are ordinarily handled expeditiously.
Delivering his ruling, Justice Malebanye struck the application off the urgent roll, stating that the circumstances did not justify abridged timelines.
“…parties could not agree on timelines for filing their responses, as the date suggested for the answering affidavit by Advocate Cronje indicated that the matter was not urgent. Having heard and reviewed the application, the Court is not satisfied that the abridgment of time is warranted by the circumstances of the case. The matter is therefore struck off the roll of urgent matters,” he ruled.
As a result, Justice Mahase’s application will now follow regular court procedures and may only be heard next year.
In her application, Justice Mahase accuses Chief Justice Sakoane of suspending her without according her a hearing.
Had she been granted a proper hearing, she says, she would have presented affidavits from Advocates Makara and Fusi Sehapi, proving that the cases in question were allocated through normal procedures.
She argues that failing to give her the opportunity to make representations violated the audi alteram partem (right to a fair hearing) principle, a cornerstone of administrative justice.
The tribunal is mandated to investigate allegations of misconduct, including claims that Justice Mahase allocated to herself cases in which she had an interest and delayed judgments beyond the 90-day period prescribed by judicial regulations.
Her suspension follows months of escalating tensions with the Chief Justice.
In June, Justice Sakoane accused her of presiding over two urgent matters without proper allocation, in violation of Practice Direction No. 2 of 2024, describing her conduct as “unbecoming and subversive of the administration of justice.”
Justice Mahase denied wrongdoing, claiming she relied on information from her clerk, who allegedly told her that the Chief Justice had allocated the cases to her.
In a 17 June 2025 response, the Chief Justice dismissed her explanation.
“Since when do Judges seek clarification from administrative staff on the propriety of dealing with matters they are seized with? Your response is not persuasive. What remains for me is to refer the matter for deeper enquiry by an independent body in terms of Section 121(5) of the Constitution.”
