- In wake of her damning report against LDF
- DPM Majara rubbishes allegations she orchestrated the move
Mohloai Mpesi
OUTSPOKEN and highly regarded Ombudsman, Advocate Tlotliso Polaki, faces heightened personal security risks after the Lesotho Defence Force (LDF) abruptly withdrew her security detail.
The withdrawal came soon after she issued a scathing report accusing the LDF of gross human rights abuses as it sought to help police combat rampant crime.
The withdrawal is seen putting her life at severe risk as the army is better trusted with VIP protecting services than the police. Most VIPs are protected by the LDF.
Minister in the Prime Minister’s office, Limpo Tau, said he had been informed by the LDF the security had been withdrawn due to a lack of soldiers. But our sources dismissed that as a lame excuse, insisting the withdrawal was to punish Adv Polaki for her damning 11 March 2025 report against the army.
The report received widespread coverage with the respected Financial Mail magazine in South Africa summarizing it under the headline “Torture in Lesotho”.
Other sources accused Deputy Prime Minister Nthomeng Majara of ordering the cancellation of Adv Polaki’s army security after accusing her of having illegally obtained it in the first place.
Ms Majara, a member of a Cabinet subcommittee on security, has rubbished the allegations.
Prime Minister Sam Matekane has allegedly stepped in by instructing Commissioner of Police, Advocate Borotho Matsoso, to replace the Ombudsman’s withdrawn soldiers with members of the police’s Special Operations Unit (SOU). Adv Polaki is said to be unhappy with the move as the army provides protection to other VIPs and is expertly trained to do so.
Adv Polaki declined to comment when the Lesotho Times contacted her yesterday.
For her part, DPM Majara denied the allegations that she was behind the move that has put the outspoken Ombudsman’s security in jeopardy.
The DPM suggested the army could have withdrawn Adv Polaki’s security out of its own volition as her office was investigating it even though she also emphasized she was not suggesting that was the real reason behind the move.
Scathing Report
The withdrawal of Adv Polaki’s LDF security detail came shortly after she released a scathing report condemning the army for perpetrating human rights abuses as it assists the police in fighting rampant crime.
The 11 March 2025 report details the LDF’s abuses of civilians during its anti-crime operations. It documents instances of torture and detention of civilians during joint police and army operations, such as Operation Hard Fist led by the army itself and Operation Fiela led by the police.
Suspicions abound that Adv Polaki is being victimised for her work against the army. The LDF has also been excoriated for publicising her personal phone number.
Army spokesperson, Colonel Sakeng Lekola, declined to comment, stating “this issue is not for the army to respond to,” and referred inquiries to Minister Tau.
DPM Majara
Sources allege that DPM Majara orchestrated the withdrawal of the security after claiming the Ombudsman had not followed proper procedures in obtaining it.
Adv Polaki had allegedly “flouted” procedures by directly seeking the security from the army instead of channelling the request through the Office of the Government Secretary (GS), it has been alleged. However, sources have rejected that claim insisting she had followed proper procedures.
The law does not explicitly guarantee security for the Ombudsman. However, she is entitled to request it should she feel threatened in the course of her sensitive work. Unlike her predecessors, Adv Polaki has been particularly vigorous in her work of exposing abuses by state organs.
According to one source, upon withdrawal of Adv Polaki’s army security, Premier Matekane had instructed the Commissioner of Police, Adv Matsoso, to assign the SOU to protect her.
However, DPM Majara is said to have questioned that directive too, demanding to see the minutes of the meeting in which Mr Matekane had supposedly issued it.
The source said the Ombudsman was also facing pushback from other civil servants who, like Ms Majara, did not feel she was entitled to any protection.
But the source noted it was imperative for Adv Polaki to be provided with security. Unlike previous comatose Ombudsmen, who exemplified little enthusiasm for their work, Adv Polaki had fast distinguished herself since taking over the job in June 2022.
Adv Polaki has even been likened to feisty former South African Ombudsman (called public protector in that country), Thuli Madonsela, who earned worldwide recognition for her work in exposing rampant corruption and abuses in state institutions.
As a result, Adv Polaki would naturally require proper state security, which in Lesotho is better offered by the army than the police.
The source referred to written communications which he claimed “proved” Ms Majara had been part of the plot to withdraw Adv Polaki’s security detail.
The other problem was that the army had not explained to Adv Polaki why it had withdrawn her security detail. She had been left to connect the dots to eventually realise it was DPM Majara who had “orchestrated” the move, the source said, further accusing the DPM of being “petty” in not speaking directly to Adv Polaki as well as ignoring her texts over the issue.
The source added DPM Majara had also been out of order in questioning the Commissioner of Police’s move to offer alternative protection.
To minimize the risk of exposing herself to danger, the source said Adv Polaki was taking extra precautions and had
DPM Majara has vehemently denied allegations that she orchestrated the withdrawal of Adv Polaki’s army security. She told the Lesotho Times yesterday that she had “no involvement” whatsoever in the removal of the soldiers.
She suggested it was only possible the LDF withdrew the security at their volition since they were being investigated by the Ombudsman.
Ms Majara emphasized she was not necessarily insinuating that was the real reason for the withdrawal as she wasn’t conversant with all the facts.
All she knew was that it defied all logic that she herself would be accused of orchestrating such a measure. She neither had any interest nor authority over security matters, which fell under the purview of the Minister of Defence and National Security (PM Matekane) and Mr Tau, the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office.
In a succinct response, Majara asserted, “My short answer is that there is no truth in all these allegations.”
She said she was also aware of allegations that she had even directed the police to withdraw the Ombudsman’s interim police security detail. She said those allegations were equally as wrong as they were laughable.
“Now when they say I have even ordered that her LMPS security be withdrawn, I ask,… what interest would I have on a woman to have her security withdrawn?”
She questioned why anyone would even expect her to be upset that the army was being investigated if any such probe was warranted. Even if the Ombudsman had investigated her personally, she would not order the withdrawal of her security.
“I have nothing to do with the security of anyone. Those issues fall outside my purview of responsibilities” she said emphatically.
Dismissing the allegations as “ridiculous,” Ms Majara reiterated: ”I don’t have any interest when the army is investigated so much that I would say she must have her security withdrawn. I reject these allegations totally. I really have no interest, I really have no say (in deployment of security officials).”
Tau
Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office, Limpho Tau, has staunchly defended DPM Majara, saying she was being wrongly blamed for the Ombudsman’s plight.
The DPM, Mr Tau said, was not a vindictive person and generally lacked interest in security issues. She was not behind any agenda to oust Adv Polaki from office if ever such an agenda existed, he said.
Mr Tau explained that high-ranking government officials and statutory office holders were entitled to state security and could request protection if they felt their lives were threatened. He said the Ombudsman had sought such protection, and the LDF had provided it.
However, Mr Tau was unaware that the Ombudsman’s army security had been withdrawn until she raised the issue.
Mr Tau said he had inquired about the withdrawal and had been told by army boss, Lt-Gen Letsoela, it was due to a shortage of soldiers. The army had been conducting certain operations and needed to increase their numbers.
To remedy the situation, Mr Tau said, the Ombudsman had been provided with police officers.
Meanwhile, another senior government source told this publication Adv Polaki should regard the decision to remove her army security as a blessing in disguise. This because it was unwise for her to get security from an institution against which she had issued such a damning report.
