Mohloai Mpesi
BASOTHO Action Party (BAP) leader, Professor Nqosa Mahao, is taking his battle to pull his party out of the coalition government to the Constitutional Court.
This follows a ruling by National Assembly Speaker, Tlohang Sekhamane, which barred Prof Mahao from moving the BAP to the opposition benches and from being recognised as the BAP parliamentary caucus chairperson.
On 9 May 2025, Mr Sekhamane ruled that he did not acknowledge Prof Mahao as the new BAP caucus chairperson, nor BAP Member of Parliament (MP) ‘Manyaneso Taole as the new caucus secretary.
Prof Mahao had sought a review of the Speaker’s ruling by Parliament, hoping for a debate and a vote to overturn it. However, on Friday, the majority of MPs voted against the motion. Out of 60 legislators who voted, 35 rejected the motion, 22 supported it, and three abstained.
Prof Mahao told the Sunday Express yesterday that they had already drafted court papers and would file them tomorrow, as they had anticipated that MPs aligned to the government would vote against the motion.
“From the beginning, we have always decided to go to court because natural justice is not determined by votes of people who are partisan,” Prof Mahao said.
“We knew and were expecting that RFP and its friends held a caucus that made a decision that, come what may, they would vote against the motion, regardless of how sound the motion is.”
He also said they want the courts to clarify the role of political parties within the parliamentary system.
“We have drafted the court papers, and we are filing on Monday because we were expecting these outcomes. But also, we want the courts to clarify our system of Parliament with respect to the place of political parties in the system.”
This comes against the backdrop of a division among the six BAP MPs, wherein four MPs; Motlatsi Maqelepo, ‘Mamoipone Senauoane, Hilda Vanrooyen, and Tello Kibane, oppose Prof Mahao and have rejected his bid to pull the party out of the Sam Matekane-led coalition government.
This after Prof Mahao was dismissed as Minister of Energy in November 2024.
He has since written several letters to the Speaker, asserting that the four MPs were no longer members of BAP as they had been suspended, following a Court of Appeal ruling in his favour. He maintained that he was the legitimate chair of the BAP Parliamentary Caucus and that Ms Taole was its secretary.
Part of the ruling delivered by the Speaker on 9 May reads: “It is the caucus itself that determines the position of different members within such caucus. When members of a political party become Members of Parliament, they automatically and necessarily become members of the caucus of that party as their right. As long as they are Members of Parliament, they are entitled to be members of the caucus of the party to which they were appointed to Parliament.”
Mr Sekhamane further stated in his ruling that the BAP Central Executive Committee (CEC) seemed to believe that the changes it makes to its Parliamentary Caucus should determine the affairs of Parliament.
“I must indicate from the onset that in my opinion, the point at issue here is undeniably the relationship between the executive committee of the BAP on the one hand, and Parliament on the other.
“The executive committee of the BAP is of the opinion that the changes it makes as an executive committee should affect the state of affairs in Parliament,” Mr Sekhamane said.
According to Mr Sekhamane, Mr Kibane and Ms Vanrooyen were still recognised as the Chairperson and Secretary, respectively, of the BAP caucus. He said he did not recognise Prof Mahao and Ms Taole as chairperson and secretary of the BAP Caucus, in line with the practices of Parliament.
On Friday, Mr Kibane argued that it was well-established that MPs make decisions and write to the Speaker, not the party’s Central Executive Committee, to determine the affairs of Parliament.
“This House has practices in which it does things. This one is not new in this House. The 10th Parliament was still using the same thing.
“At one point, the ABC NEC, as ABC was leading the coalition government at that time, had different opinions from Members of Parliament as to who would succeed the Prime Minister.
“The opinions that were taken did not come from the NEC but from the ABC Parliamentary Caucus, because party decisions at the level of Parliament are made by the Parliamentary Caucus, not the NECs of political parties,” Mr Kibane said.
He added: “Members of the Parliamentary Caucus are responsible for passing their opinions without consulting those committees. They make decisions on their own.
“NEC cannot write to the Speaker, but the Secretary of the Parliamentary Caucus is the one responsible for that. These parliamentary practices need to be protected.”
Leader of the Mpulule Political Summit (MPS), Remaketse Sehlabaka, said he supported Prof Mahao, saying his motion was sound. He questioned whether parliamentary practices could be placed above the law.
“I support the professor because he is making a distinction between law and practices. So, the issue is whether the practices can be above the law. If we don’t consider that, we might find ourselves making mistakes often.
“The word ‘caucus’ is a short word that means a meeting of members of a political party. This means there is nowhere the Speaker features in those meetings. The Speaker needs to accept the decision of that parliamentary caucus.
“Meaning, he cannot make a decision different from that which was made by the members of the Parliamentary Caucus,” Mr Sehlabaka said.
However, Revolution for Prosperity (RFP) legislator for the Likotsi constituency, Itumeleng Rantšo, raised a point of order, warning that the issue could potentially create new problems if MPs failed to toe the party line.
She explained that there could be a situation where MPs create factions, and such a faction could end up with more MPs than those aligned with the party leadership, resulting in splinter caucuses forming independently.
“Don’t you think this will end up fuelling rebellion? In a case where political parties in this House that have caucuses happen to experience factionalism, and a certain faction has more numbers than the part that supports and aligns with the leadership of the party, then they resolve to form their own caucus.
“This can lead to a point where the faction that has more followers might even write to the Speaker and say they form their own Caucus, as opposed to the faction that respects and follows the leadership of the party,” Ms Rantšo said.
Chair of Chairs and MP for Mokhethoaneng constituency, Mokhothu Makhalanyane, called on the Deputy Speaker to intervene between Mr Maqelepo and Prof Mahao for the sake of peace.
“We have discussed this issue for a long time. Now that we are working towards reforming Parliament, we have to include it.
“But Honourable Speaker, please intervene between Mr Maqelepo and Professor Mahao. They should talk and solve this issue, so that there is peace in Parliament. They should forgive each other,” Mr Makhalanyane said.
The RFP Hololo constituency MP, Lejone Mpotjoane, said every political party in Parliament needed to have a caucus which would communicate with the Speaker, not the committee of the political party.
“The Speaker does not have the interest of engaging in political parties.
“The consideration of the ruling of the Speaker is that, in his knowledge, BAP has six MPs, and those BAP MPs determine the Parliamentary Caucus of the BAP.
“The importance of the Parliamentary Caucus is that there is no other way that any political party can talk to the Speaker without the Parliamentary Caucus. Hence, it is important that every party should write to the Speaker about who the secretary is and who the chairperson is. If there are changes, they need to go through the right procedure,” Mr Mpotjoane said.