…accuses him of abusing the courts to block disciplinary action
Moorosi Tsiane
THE Lesotho Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Council (LMDPC) has accused the embattled medical practitioner, Hlalele Mofubelu, of abusing court processes to derail ongoing disciplinary proceedings against him.
The LMDPC president, Makakole Lelimo, describes Dr Mofubelu as “opportunistic and insincere”, citing a series of lawsuits that he (Lelimo) believes are calculated to frustrate the Council’s efforts to hold the latter accountable for alleged professional misconduct.
The dispute stems from the Council’s refusal to renew Dr Mofubelu’s retention certificate, a crucial document that grants licensed medical professionals the legal right to practice. The certificate is issued annually to registered members of the Council, allowing them to operate as doctors, dentists, or pharmacists, in accordance with the Public Health Order of 1970.
Dr Mofubelu has taken the matter to the High Court, claiming the Council unlawfully denied him a retention certificate for the 2022/2023 financial year and subsequent years. He is seeking a judicial review, arguing that the Council’s decision was irrational, unreasonable, irregular, unlawful, and invalid.
In court documents filed in March 2025, Dr Mofubelu revealed that the Council had previously found him guilty of sexually harassing a patient, Rabohlokoa Raphoolo, around June 2022. Apart from that, several women have narrated to the Sunday Express’s sister publication, the Lesotho Times, harrowing accounts of how Dr Mofubelu allegedly sexually harassed them while attending to them at his Maseru situated Naleli Family Clinic.
Nonetheless, Dr Mofubelu is adamant he is not guilty of any malpractice. He is challenging the Council’s disciplinary proceedings, claiming the disciplinary committee was improperly constituted by its president and vice-president. He argues that the Council’s refusal to issue him with a retention certificate is retaliatory.
The legal battle dates back to June 2022, when Dr Mofubelu filed an appeal (case number CIV/A/0012/2022) against the Council’s verdict finding him guilty of professional misconduct. The case was filed on 7 June 2022 before Justice Fumane Khabo, but has remained inactive since the Council challenged the procedural integrity of Dr Mofubelu’s application on 14 July 2022.
Then, on 24 August 2024, Dr Mofubelu launched a fresh application seeking the issuance of a retention certificate. That case, too, has remained dormant, with no court appearance made to date. His most recent application, again seeking the certificate, was lodged in March 2025.
In his answering affidavit to the latest litigation, Dr Lelimo said Dr Mofubelu has consistently refused to comply with the disciplinary committee’s ruling and has shown defiance towards all efforts to hold him accountable.
He has been using the judicial process to stifle all disciplinary measures waged against him. The first litigation was the first measure of stifling and/or frustrating the statutory mandate of enforcement of discipline against him. The last appearance was made before Justice Khabo on 8 August 2022 and since then the matter has been dormant,” Dr Lelimo argues.
“Two weeks after the appearance before Justice Fumane Khabo, Dr Mofubelu then launched yet another parallel matter challenging the Council over the measure of disciplinary action that was waged against him in CIV/APN/0263/2022. No movement nor appearance before the court has been made since 24 August 2022.
“The matter is equally dormant and qualifies for dismissal. It was a well-calculated measure to frustrate the disciplinary measures against himself. On 24 August 2024, he yet again launched another separate application seeking to be issued with a retention certificate for the 2023/2024 financial year. The relevant litigation was dormant and no appearance was made to date.”
Dr Lelimo firmly defends the Council’s decision to withhold Dr Mofubelu’s retention certificate, rejecting the notion that it was irrational or unlawful. He maintains – in his latest court papers – that the doctor’s failure to comply with disciplinary sanctions disqualified him from receiving the certificate.
“The decision of the Respondent (LMDPC) not to issue a retention certificate was not irrational, unreasonable, irregular, unlawful and/or invalid,” he argued. “It is specifically pleaded that it is self-defeating that Dr Mofubelu would institute review proceedings against the decision of the disciplinary committee and on the other hand aver that he has always been willing to abide by the decision of the disciplinary hearing. This is grossly disingenuous.”
He continues: “It is respectfully submitted that the applicant is both opportunistic and insincere on insisting on the retention certificate in circumstances where there is an adverse finding against him to which he has not complied to date. Further afield, there is yet another matter in which he equally displayed indifference, where he sought to frustrate yet another disciplinary inquiry which must endure the same fate. The last activity on the matter was on 29 August 2022.”
Dr Lelimo stresses the importance of examining the connection between the current application and previous litigation filed by Dr Mofubelu.
“The linkages that have to be drawn between this matter and these two litigations on the issuance of retention certificates is important to highlight. The Applicant was subjected to a disciplinary process which gave birth to a verdict which he purported to appeal against. This was strongly opposed and to date, he has not complied with the verdict and neither has he prosecuted his purported appeal for the past three years. Hence, the counter-application that the relevant appeal be dismissed as well.
“Dr Mofubelu wrongfully assumes that he will never be issued a retention certificate due to failure to do so in the year of 2022 and 2023. The applicant has not taken the court into his confidence by highlighting that there is yet another inactive and/or abandoned matter under CIV/A/0012/2022, which is a purported appeal to which there has been an equal display of indifference on his part.”
He also states that the issuance of a retention certificate is not a mere formality, but a process that evaluates the overall standing and conduct of the practitioner.
“The issuance of a retention certificate is therefore not solely dependent on payment of an annual subscription of a registered person but other factors such as patient safety also have to be taken into consideration. Dr Mofubelu’s failure to comply with the imposed sanctions directly impacts his eligibility for a retention certificate. The retention certificate is not simply a formality but a verification of good standing and compliance. Granting a retention certificate under his circumstances would therefore be an injustice to those who adhere to professional standards and the victims thereof.”
Dr Lelimo also argues that Dr Mofubelu’s latest application has effectively become moot, given that the financial year in question has ended.
“I wish to bring this court into my confidence and state that LMDPC’s 2024/25 financial year ended on 31 March 2025. I aver that since the 2024/25 financial year has ended, the matter is moot and its determination would be academic. In the event this Honourable Court orders issuance of same, the retention certificate would serve no purpose for it would have expired upon issuance.”
He asserts that Dr Mofubelu is not in good standing with the Council and is therefore not entitled to demand the certificate. He urged the court to dismiss the application for want of prosecution.
“It becomes patently clear that Dr Mofubelu seeks to be issued with a retention certificate in circumstances where there are several pending matters that seek to interrogate his professional misconduct. There is no explanation rendered for his indifference to the active litigations, particularly those dealing directly with his indiscipline. The dismissal for want of prosecution shall pave the way for the disciplinary matters to proceed and the consequent finality thereof. I aver that such a member is under the circumstances not in good standing and cannot demand the retention certificate as of right. I humbly ask the court to dismiss the application for want of prosecution and/or being inactive, in tandem with the rules of this Honourable Court.”