. . . as activist follows Law Society to court
. . . says Act is “stillborn” and unconstitutional
Mohloai Mpesi
ACTIVIST Kananelo Boloetse has joined the growing bandwagon calling for the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution to be scrapped.
Mr Boloetse has filed a lawsuit against the National Assembly, accusing it of breaching constitutional provisions by passing the Tenth Amendment without first subjecting it to a referendum.
The amendment was gazetted and published on 13 August 2025.
His application follows a similar challenge by the Law Society of Lesotho last week, which also argues that the Tenth Amendment was passed without adhering to mandatory constitutional procedures. These include securing a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly or holding a national referendum for certain entrenched clauses.
The Law Society is contesting Sections 4, 5, and 6 of the amendment, claiming these undermine core constitutional protections, including fundamental human rights, and alter the legal framework governing Parliament’s independence and structure.
Now, Mr Boloetse contends that the enactment of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution Act 2025 violates his right to participate in public affairs, as guaranteed under Section 20 of the Constitution.
In court papers filed before the High Court this week, Mr Boloetse is joined by a civic group, Advocates for the Supremacy of the Constitution, as the second applicants.
His Majesty the King, the Speaker of the National Assembly, Tlohang Sekhamane, The President of the Senate, Mamonaheng Mokitimi, Minister of Law and Justice, Richard Ramoeletsi, the National Assembly, the Senate and Attorney General, Rapelang Motsieloa KC, are the first to seventh respondents, respectively.
The Tenth and Eleventh Amendments Bills to the Constitution were tabled in the National Assembly by Mr Ramoeletsi on 6 May 2024 and referred to the Law and Public Safety Committee. The Tenth Amendment later passed to the Senate around October 2024.
The litigation comes against the backdrop of the National Assembly’s passage of the Tenth Amendment, followed by His Majesty’s Royal Assent. The Act was presented by the Prime Minister at the 45th Ordinary Summit of the Southern African Development Committee (SADC) in Antananarivo, Madagascar, on 17 August 2025.
SADC commended Lesotho for the passage, noting it “removes the Kingdom of Lesotho from the agenda of the Organ Troika, following positive progress regarding the political and security situation in Lesotho”.
The enactment, however, sparked public outrage, with local political parties and civic groups arguing that it was unlawful because it bypassed a referendum.
In his affidavit, Mr Boloetse alleges that his rights to participate in public affairs have been violated. He points to Section 85(3) of the Constitution, which clearly states that any Bill altering Chapter II of the Constitution – except for sections 18(4) and 24(3) – cannot be submitted to the King for assent unless it has been approved in a referendum not less than two months but not more than six months after passage by Parliament.
“In the present matter, I allege that my right to participate in the conduct of public affairs as guaranteed under Section 20 of the Constitution has been violated by the enactment of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution Act, 2025, without first subjecting it to a referendum as required by Section 85(3) of the Constitution. By bypassing the mandatory referendum process, Parliament has denied me, and indeed all Basotho, the right to directly approve or disapprove amendments to Chapter II, which contains the protections of fundamental human rights and freedoms,” Mr Boloetse argues.
He claims that Section 2 of the Constitution declares it the supreme law of Lesotho, rendering any inconsistent law void.
“It is the duty of this Honourable Court, as guardian of the Constitution, to uphold this provision.”
Mr Boloetse also claims that the right to participate in government, enshrined in Section 20, guarantees every citizen the ability to take part directly or through freely chosen representatives, vote or stand for election in free and fair elections, and access public service equally.
He argues that citizens have an inherent right to participate in constitutional reform affecting the basic structure of the Constitution. Bills altering entrenched provisions must be referred to a referendum.
“The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution was already a corpse in law when it reached His Majesty’s table, incapable of being animated by royal assent.
“A bill altering entrenched provisions ‘shall not be submitted to the King for his assent’ unless first approved by referendum. Where such a bill is transmitted to the King without a referendum, it arrives not as a valid constitutional instrument, but as a constitutional stillbirth. Severing parts from a corpse does not bring it to life. Once the constitutional pipeline was breached, once a referendum was omitted, the entire process was fatally tainted.”
It is likely that Mr Boloetse’s application and that of the Law Society will be consolidated and heard together by the court.
