Lesotho’s judges cannot remain  sitting ducks for common criminals 

THE safety of judges and magistrates in this country has once again been thrust into the national spotlight, and the picture it paints is deeply troubling.

Recent events, including the shocking robbery of High Court Judge Polo Banyane in broad daylight, have exposed a glaring contradiction in how the state views security: those entrusted with dispensing justice are left largely unprotected, while politicians enjoy the constant presence of heavily armed guards, even though their personal security might not often be at risk.

Judges and magistrates occupy the most sensitive and dangerous positions in any democracy.

Their decisions affect freedom, property, livelihoods and, in some cases, life itself. They sentence criminals, rule against powerful interests and interpret laws in politically charged environments. By the very nature of their work, they make enemies. Yet in this Kingdom, these custodians of the rule of law are expected to fend for themselves in a society grappling with rising crime and violence.

It is not unusual to see judges walking alone in shopping malls, attending to personal errands like any other ordinary citizen. Some are compelled to personally visit traffic department offices to register their vehicles, queueing alongside members of the public. Magistrates are frequently seen using public transport, exposing them to potential harm and intimidation.

Consider the risk of encountering a judge or magistrate who ruled against you, or acquitted someone accused of killing your close relative. In such emotionally charged circumstances, the possibility of confrontation or even violence cannot be ruled out, placing judicial officers in unnecessary danger.

All these risks are caused by the state’s failure to provide even the most rudimentary security arrangements.

The irony is painful.

Cabinet ministers and senior politicians, many of whom face primarily political rather than physical threats, are routinely escorted by soldiers or heavily armed police officers. Their movements are monitored, their homes guarded and their public appearances secured.

This disparity raises uncomfortable questions: does the state value political office above judicial independence. Does it occur to the state that an attack on a judge is an attack on the justice system itself?

The case of Magistrate Itumeleng Letsika illustrates both the danger and the reactive nature of the government’s approach to judicial security.

She is currently guarded by the police Special Operations Unit, but only because she received explicit death threats. While this protection is welcome and necessary, it highlights a disturbing reality: security for judicial officers is only considered after a threat materialises. Prevention, it seems, is not part of the strategy.

This reactive approach is both dangerous and reckless. Waiting for judges or magistrates to be robbed, assaulted or threatened before acting undermines the dignity of the judiciary and exposes a key institution to avoidable danger.

When judicial officers fear for their lives, justice is compromised. Decisions may be influenced by fear, cases delayed, or experienced officers driven out of service altogether. In extreme cases, intimidation can lead to miscarriages of justice that haunt a nation for generations.

International best practice recognises the judiciary as a high-risk profession requiring structured protection. In many jurisdictions, judges are provided with risk assessments, personal protection officers and secure transport, with controlled access to their residences and workplaces.

This is not about privilege; it is about safeguarding judicial independence. Lesotho lags far behind this standard.

The argument that the country lacks resources is unconvincing. If the state can afford to deploy soldiers to guard politicians around the clock, it can certainly reallocate or expand resources to protect judges and magistrates. The issue is not capacity, but priorities.

This imbalance sends a dangerous message to criminals: judicial officers are soft targets. When a High Court judge can be robbed at knifepoint in a public place, confidence in law enforcement erodes rapidly. If judges are not safe, who is?

The safety of judicial officers should not depend on individual threats, media attention or public outrage. It must be institutionalised through clear policy and legislation. The Ministry of Justice, in collaboration with the judiciary and security agencies, must urgently develop a comprehensive judicial security framework.

Protecting judges and magistrates is not a favour; it is an urgent necessity. The rule of law cannot survive if those tasked with upholding it are left exposed. A judiciary that operates in fear cannot be truly independent, and a democracy without an independent judiciary is a democracy in name only.

The state must decide, decisively and urgently, whether it is serious about justice. If it is, then the protectors of the law must themselves be protected.