Matekane rejects claims of defying courts

…insists his gvt respects judicial decisions

…appeals to opposition to end reforms boycott

Mohloai Mpesi

PRIME Minister, Sam Matekane, has rejected the opposition’s accusations that his government is deliberately defying court orders. He has in turn accused the opposition of misleading the world and portraying a wrong picture of his government’s attitude towards judicial decisions.

Mr Matekane’s denial comes against the backdrop of an escalating feud with opposition parties over the rule of law, which they insist has been on a downward spiral under Mr Matekne.  They cite several cases in which they allege Mr Matekane’s coalition has willfully defied court orders.  As a result, the opposition parties announced this week they were withdrawing from the long delayed national reforms process. They have also sought the intervention of the Southern African Development Community (SADC).

In a six-page response, dated 5 August 2026, to a letter from Leader of the Opposition, Mathibeli Mokhothu, Mr Matekane appealed to the opposition to return to the reforms process, saying its participation was essential to giving the exercise national legitimacy.

“I respectfully disagree with the suggestion that the government has adopted a posture of disregard for judicial authority or that it has deliberately chosen not to comply with decisions of our courts,” Mr Matekane wrote.

He said allegations of contempt of court were matters for the courts to determine and not for political actors or the executive.

Mr Matekane went through the cases cited by Mr Mokhothu, arguing that in some instances the orders being referred to by the opposition were never made, while in others the question of compliance remained before the courts.

Opposition’s case

The Prime Minister’s response follows weeks of mounting opposition criticism over what the opposition parties describe as the government’s failure to comply with court judgments.

The opposition has suspended its participation in the national reforms process until, it said, the government complied with outstanding court orders. Mr Mokhothu has also petitioned SADC, accusing the government of systematically disregarding judicial decisions and warning that this undermines the constitutional principles the reforms are intended to strengthen.

Adv Polaki’s dispute with the government has escalated into contempt-of-court proceedings arising from a Constitutional Court interim order issued on 29 June 2026 allowing her to remain in office pending determination of her constitutional challenge over her removal from office.

She has alleged that she was subsequently locked out of her office despite the order. Her lawyer, Adv Tekane Maqakachane, told the Constitutional Court on Tuesday that the order remained unimplemented, and therefore instituted the contempt application.

The government, through Adv Motiea Teele, sought additional time to respond to the contempt application. The court subsequently postponed the matter to allow the Prime Minister an opportunity to respond.

The opposition also cited the cases involving suspended Director of Public Prosecutions Advocate Hlalefang Motinyane, former Revenue Services Lesotho Commissioner General ‘Mathabo Mokoko, and the 77 former National Security Service as examples of the alleged non-compliance with court orders by Mr Matekane’s government. In all these cases, the opposition insists that the courts ordered the reinstalment of the affected officials, but Mr Matekane’s government refused to comply.

Matekane’s response

Mr Matekane has now directly challenged that characterisation, denying that his government was not obeying the rule of law.

DPP Motinyane

On the case involving Adv Motinyane, Mr Matekane challenged the opposition’s assertion that the government was obliged to reinstate her following the Constitutional Court’s judgment declaring her suspension unlawful.

He said the case had been brought by the Law Society of Lesotho and not by Adv Motinyane herself, and that the Law Society had specifically made it clear that it was not litigating on behalf of the DPP.

“As you will recall, the applicant in that matter was the Law Society of Lesotho and not the Director of Public Prosecutions herself. The Law Society expressly made it clear in its pleadings that it was not litigating on behalf of the DPP but sought constitutional clarification regarding the interpretation of the relevant constitutional provisions,” Mr Matekane said.

He said this distinction was important because the Constitutional Court had not been asked to order Adv Motinyane’s reinstatement and consequently had not issued such an order.

“Accordingly, there was no prayer seeking the reinstatement of the DPP, nor did the Constitutional Court grant such relief. While the Court held that the suspension was unlawful, it did not issue a consequential order directing her reinstatement,” he said.

Mr Matekane therefore rejected the suggestion that the government’s failure to reinstate Adv Motinyane amounted to contempt of court.

“It cannot therefore be asserted that the government is in contempt of an order that was never made,” he said.

Mokoko

Mr Matekane similarly disputed the opposition’s characterisation of the legal battle involving Adv Mokoko.

He said the proceedings were not instituted against the government as such, but against RSL and other respondents.

“This matter was instituted against the Revenue Services Lesotho and other respondents. It was not proceedings against the government as such,” Mr Matekane said.

He further pointed out that the question of contempt had already been tested before the courts, with the court finding that the respondents had not acted in contempt.

“More importantly, the applicant subsequently brought contempt proceedings against the respondents, and the Court found that they were not in contempt of court,” he said.

NSS officers

On the dispute involving 77 former National Security Service officers, Mr Matekane rejected the opposition’s assertion that the Court of Appeal had ordered the government to reinstate them.

He said the court had taken into account the unusually long period that had elapsed between the officers leaving the service and the determination of their appeal.

“Respectfully, that is not what the Court ordered. The Court expressly recognised that, by the time the appeal was determined, more than seven years had elapsed since the applicants had left the Service,” Mr Matekane said.

He said the Court of Appeal had also recorded that the officers’ own counsel accepted that reinstatement was no longer a viable remedy.

“The Court recorded that counsel for the appellants accepted that reinstatement was no longer a viable remedy. Consequently, the Court declined to order reinstatement and instead left the practical implications of its judgment to be addressed through an appropriate process,” he said.

Mr Matekane said the government had not simply ignored the judgment but had since been involved in efforts to find a lawful and practical way of resolving the dispute.

“Following that judgment, the government initiated discussions aimed at resolving the matter. I am advised that the Attorney General and the Counsel representing the respondents (NSS officers) have been engaged with counsel for the appellants in an effort to reach a practical and lawful resolution,” he said.

He said the negotiations had to take into account the complications created by the passage of time.

“Those discussions have necessarily taken into account the complexity of the matter, particularly the lengthy period-approximately seven years-that elapsed between the institution of the proceedings and the delivery of judgment.

“That passage of time has inevitably created practical, legal, administrative, and operational consequences which require careful handling if a fair and sustainable resolution is to be achieved,” Mr Matekane said.

‘Nuanced picture’

Mr Matekane therefore disagreed with the opposition’s portrayal of the government’s conduct.

He argued that the government had, in several instances, already complied with court judgments or was actively engaged in lawful processes to implement them.

“It is therefore difficult to sustain the broad proposition that the government has adopted a deliberate policy of disrespecting court orders or undermining judicial authority,” he said.

PM appeals for return

Mr Matekane hence appealed to the opposition to return to the reforms process.

He said the reforms did not belong to the government, opposition parties or any individual institution but were a national undertaking intended to strengthen Lesotho’s constitutional order, promote stability and improve governance.

“The reforms process is not the property of any government, political party, or institution. It is a national undertaking born out of the collective aspirations of Basotho to strengthen our constitutional order, promote stability, improve governance and secure a better future for generations to come,” he wrote.

He described opposition participation as “indispensable” to ensuring the reforms carried broad national legitimacy and urged Mr Mokhothu to return to consultations “notwithstanding our political differences”.

“History will judge us not by the positions we defended as political actors, but by the institutions we leave behind for the people of Lesotho,” Mr Matekane said.

Contacted for comment, Mr Mokhothu said the opposition would respond accordingly.

“We acknowledge reception of his response. However, we do not agree with him in terms of compliance with court orders. We dismiss the Prime Minister’s answer as no answer to our complaint. We are preparing our answer which we are hoping to finalise before Thursday,” Mr Mokhothu said.