THE leadership of the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) is once again under the microscope, as the current Commissioners lobby for a second term while opposition parties demand a transparent and competitive selection process.
First, we need to ask: Should IEC Chairperson Mphasa Mokhochane and fellow Commissioners Karabo Mokobocho-Mohlakoana and Tšoeu Petlane be granted a second term at the helm of Lesotho’s electoral affairs?
The answer is not merely legalistic. It must also be ethical, political, and grounded in the broader interest of restoring and maintaining public trust in the electoral process.
From a constitutional standpoint, the trio is not barred from seeking reappointment. Section 66(7) of the Constitution, as amended in 2004, clearly states that commissioners “may be reappointed for only one further term, not exceeding five years”. The Commissioners’ interest in a second term is therefore within their rights.
However, rights must be exercised within a framework of transparent, merit-based selection that protects both the integrity of the process and the perception of impartiality. This is where the real debate lies.
The Forum of Registered Political Parties has made it plain that reappointment should not be automatic.
In its letter to the Council of State, the Forum argues persuasively for a competitive process open to all eligible candidates, including the incumbents, rather than a rubber-stamping exercise behind closed doors.
This position is not without precedent. Former IEC Commissioner Fako Likoti, who twice sought reappointment, had to submit fresh applications and was subjected to the same vetting process as new candidates. He was never reappointed, despite making the shortlist on both occasions.
What the Forum seeks is fairness, consistency, and a transparent mechanism that avoids preferential treatment. Anything less risks violating the very principles the IEC is meant to uphold: neutrality, accountability, and public confidence.
Equally compelling are the opposition parties’ grievances regarding the Commissioners’ performance during their first term, particularly around the October 2022 general elections.
The alleged disenfranchisement of voters due to omissions from the voters’ roll, errors in constituency delimitation, and the mishandling of proportional representation (PR) seat allocations are not trivial. These are issues that directly impact electoral credibility and the representation of the people in parliament.
Yes, the IEC owned up to its mistakes and took legal steps to correct them. But the damage to public trust was already done. The IEC is not just any public body; it is the referee of democratic contests. If that referee is seen, rightly or wrongly, to be making basic errors, questions about its continued leadership are bound to arise. Those calling for a leadership shake-up are not simply being obstinate but they are expressing legitimate concerns over competence and accountability.
To that end, the calls for a fresh selection process should not be viewed as an attack on the incumbents personally. Rather, they are a defence of democratic integrity. If the current Commissioners believe their record merits a second term, let them reapply and compete like everyone else. Their experience could count in their favour, but the final decision must be made through an open, fair, and inclusive recruitment process that sustains public confidence.
The Council of State must avoid any move that could be interpreted as favouritism or backroom dealing. The process for appointing or reappointing IEC Commissioners must not only be legally sound but also appear free of bias. The legitimacy of future elections may well hang in the balance.
Moreover, the law must not be wielded selectively.
While the Constitution allows reappointment, it also envisages checks, such as competitive procedures and meaningful consultations with stakeholders. It is precisely these elements that safeguard the IEC’s independence. Ignoring them risks politicising the Commission and eroding the credibility of the next electoral cycle.
Ultimately, Lesotho’s democracy is still evolving, and institutions like the IEC are central to its consolidation. The country cannot afford the luxury of doubt when it comes to its electoral referees. A tainted process now may well result in contested elections and a crisis of legitimacy down the road – akin to the 1998 dark saga.
For that reason, the Council of State must heed the call of political parties and civil society alike: open up the process. Let merit, not incumbency, decide who oversees our elections.
Another chance to put our house in order