…as Appeal Court dismisses bid to overturn GVG surveillance contract
Moorosi Tsiane
THE Lesotho Communications Authority (LCA) has suffered another major blow after the Court of Appeal on Friday dismissed its bid to nullify the controversial M500 million surveillance system contract awarded to South African firm, Global Voice Group (GVG).
The ruling cements GVG’s grip on the lucrative Compliance Monitoring and Revenue Assurance (CMRA) deal — a system critics have branded a “spy tool” amid fears it could enable the monitoring of telecommunications traffic and mobile money transactions.
The judgment marks the latest chapter in a protracted legal battle that began after the LCA sought to overturn the contract awarded in 2020, arguing that former chief executive Advocate Mamarame Matela had acted outside her powers and flouted procurement procedures in awarding the tender.
The LCA approached the Court of Appeal after suffering a major defeat in September last year, when High Court Judge Moneuoa Kopo upheld the validity of the contract.
In that judgment, Justice Kopo acknowledged that there may have been procedural irregularities within the LCA but ruled that no procurement laws had been breached in appointing GVG as the preferred bidder.
“The appointment of GVG as the preferred bidder is not contrary to the procurement laws of this country. The erstwhile CEO (Matela) may not have complied with a number of internal rules to the extent that a bystander may feel that something was amiss. However, no procurement laws were broken,” Justice Kopo ruled.
He further warned that cancelling the contract would damage Lesotho’s credibility in international commercial dealings.
“The need for the procurement of the system was accepted even at ministerial level. The appointment of GVG was approved by the highest governing body of the LCA. It would be a travesty of justice if the GVG appointment were declared unlawful, as it would severely compromise the integrity of this country in commercial dealings,” he added.
Although the court found that some clauses in the agreement — including one exempting GVG from paying tax — were against public policy, Justice Kopo held that those issues were not sufficient to invalidate the entire contract.
“For this reason, therefore, the entire Master Service Agreement and the Arbitration Agreement cannot be declared null and void. Since there is an arbitration clause, parties should ventilate the said clause through arbitration. The freedom of contract must be respected,” he ruled before dismissing the application with costs.
Dissatisfied with the outcome, the LCA escalated the matter to the Court of Appeal, arguing that Justice Kopo had erred in concluding that the alleged illegalities should instead be dealt with through arbitration.
The appeal was heard on 15 April 2026 before Justices Petrus Damaseb, Phillip Musonda and ’Maliepollo Makhetha. The LCA was represented by Adv Motiea Teele KC, while Adv Kaizer Selimo appeared for GVG.
Adv Teele argued that Adv Matela had acted beyond her legal authority by entering into both the agreement and the arbitration clause embedded in it.
“The former CEO was not authorised to enter into an arbitration agreement. She was not entitled to enter into any arbitration contract at all — she acted outside her powers. The public procurement processes were not followed,” he submitted.
He further argued that Adv Matela had acted ultra vires by allegedly assuming multiple roles in the procurement process, including participating in the evaluation stage and influencing the final award of the tender.
However, Adv Selimo dismissed the LCA’s arguments as baseless and politically motivated.
“The decision that is sought to be reviewed by the appellants does not exist as a matter of fact. This application has been brought simply to discredit the former CEO (Matela) because the facts raised here are incorrect,” he argued.
In GVG’s cross appeal, Adv Selimo said the LCA had weakened its own case by failing to cite Adv Matela in the proceedings.
“These issues would have been resolved long ago if the former CEO had been joined in the matter. The court would have directed her to produce the record of proceedings leading to the decision, but she is not here to respond to these allegations,” he said.
He also rejected claims that Adv Matela single-handedly awarded the tender, insisting that the LCA board made the final decision.
“It is also incorrect to say that the LCA board has no role to play in procurement processes, and it is not correct to say that Matela made any awards because the awarding of the tender was made by the board,” he submitted.
Adv Selimo further told the court that there was no fully constituted tender panel at the LCA at the time — a situation later confirmed by the Auditor General — with such structures only established in 2021.
He urged the court to dismiss the appeal with costs.
Reading only the order part of the judgment on Friday, Court of Appeal President Justice Kananelo Mosito said the three-judge panel had dismissed both the appeal and the cross appeal with costs, adding that detailed reasons for the decision would be released later.
“The appeal is dismissed with costs and the cross appeal is dismissed with costs…..,” Justice Mosito said.