Eleven ‘cyber experts’ take decade-old LMPS pay fight to Appeal Court
Hopolang Mokhopi
ELEVEN Basotho who say they were hired as cyber experts by the Lesotho Mounted Police Service (LMPS) a decade ago have taken their fight for unpaid salaries to the Court of Appeal, claiming the High Court threw out their claim without giving reasons.
The group says its pay stopped in November 2016, barely nine months into the job, yet it was never dismissed, discharged or otherwise released from the service. The government’s answer is blunter: the 11 were never lawfully employed in the first place, no cyber unit existed, and whatever money they received came out of a senior officer’s own pocket.
The appellants argue that the High Court erred by dismissing their action without furnishing reasons for the judgment. They have reserved the right to file additional grounds once the written judgment is available.
In the High Court, Tlhokomelo Thibankhoe and 10 others sued the Commissioner of Police, the Principal Secretary in the Ministry of Police, the Public Service Commission (PSC), the Minister of Police and the Attorney General. The same five are cited as respondents in the appeal.
The other plaintiffs are Tšepo Mofolo, Kefuoe Makoa, Liopelo Monaheng, Seoaholimo Makoae, Sello Mahase, Poloko Sojane, Makhala Lesaoana, Mamolapi Serutla, Raseabi Raseabi and Keletso Nthethe.
According to their declaration, the plaintiffs say they were employed on permanent and pensionable terms on 29 January 2016 after applying to the office of the Commissioner of Police. They say their appointment letters were issued in the presence of the then Principal Secretary, Selloane Qhobela, and the then Minister of Police, Monyane Moleleki.
They further say they submitted their identity and educational documents, which were taken to the Ministry of Public Service for onward submission to the PSC, and that their interviews were conducted by then Commissioner of Police, Molahlehi Letsoepa, together with a person with information technology expertise.
Their duties, they say, included providing IT services to the LMPS, administering the central server for the ICT unit, combating and investigating cyber fraud, and operating drones along Lesotho’s borders to feed information to police intelligence.
While awaiting a permanent workstation, they say they were stationed at Victoria Hotel from 1 February 2016 until early 2017, reporting to Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) Seabata Tutuoane. Mr Mofolo, the second plaintiff, was the unit leader.
The plaintiffs say they were placed in grades G, H, I and J but all held the same position of cyber expert. They say they performed their duties and were initially paid monthly in cash before being absorbed into the government and police payroll.
Their payments stopped in November 2016 without a hearing, they say, although they continued reporting for duty until 2017, when the management of Victoria Hotel verbally ordered them off the premises.
They say they then took the matter to three successive heads of the police. Mr Letsoepa, appointed in November 2015, retired on 11 September 2017 after being eased out on involuntary leave; Keketso Monaheng, then Deputy Commissioner and now retired, held the office in an acting capacity in 2017; and Holomo Molibeli, who succeeded Mr Letsoepa substantively, led the service until 2024. Mr Molibeli, the plaintiffs say, promised in 2018 that both the arrears and a new duty station would be sorted out.
In 2019 they were told the matter was before the then Minister of Police, and an approach through their lawyer in 2020 drew no response, they say.
Mediation fared no better. A mediation report dated 27 March 2023 and signed by Advocate Mothobi records that the matter was referred to mediation on 15 February 2022 in terms of the High Court (Mediation) Rules of 2011, but could not get off the ground because the defendants failed to attend on three occasions without good cause. The parties finally sat down on 22 March 2023, failed to agree, and the file went back to court.
The plaintiffs maintain that because they were never dismissed, discharged or had their appointments terminated, they remain entitled to their salaries, including arrears, their remuneration having been withheld without any observance of natural justice.
They want an order compelling the defendants to pay the arrears and to continue paying their salaries, together with interest at 11 percent a year from the date of summons to final payment, costs of suit and further relief the court deems appropriate.
The government disputes virtually every material aspect of the claim.
In its plea, it raises a special plea of prescription, arguing that the cause of action arose in November 2016 but that summons was issued only on 5 February 2021 — more than four years later. That, it says, is well outside the six months allowed for civil actions under Section 77 of the Police Service Act No. 7 of 1998 and the two years allowed under Section 6 of the Government Proceedings and Contracts Act No. 4 of 1965.
The six-month bar is not absolute. The same section permits the court to extend the period for good cause shown, with the burden resting on the party seeking the extension, and it also requires two months’ written notice to a defendant before suit is commenced.
On the merits, the defendants deny that the plaintiffs were employed on permanent and pensionable terms on 29 January 2016.
Superintendent Sello Marou, of the LMPS human resources office, contends that there was no way the plaintiffs could have been confirmed on permanent and pensionable terms on the very day of their appointment without first serving probation. He adds that the terms of employment were never determined by the Commissioner of Police after consultation with the relevant police authority and the Minister of Public Service.
Supt Marou consequently denies that any lawful employment contract existed between the parties. He also denies that an IT support unit existed within the LMPS and disputes the claim that the plaintiffs were stationed at Victoria Hotel, saying no police officers are housed there. He further denies that they performed police duties or were paid through the government payroll.
Any payments made to them, the plea states, came from ACP Tutuoane’s own pocket and not from the government purse.
The defendants also reject the contention that the plaintiffs were entitled to a hearing before payments stopped, arguing that no entitlement or reasonable expectation existed and that no legal obligation can arise from an unlawful act.
The government further disputes that people in grades G, H, I and J could occupy the same position of cyber expert, and says the PSC has no record of the plaintiffs’ alleged employment.
It says Mr Molibeli only became aware of the plaintiffs when they approached him personally, denies that either the Commissioner or the Minister made any promises to resolve the matter, and points out that Mr Moleleki was no longer Minister of Police by 2019.
The government denies owing the plaintiffs anything, arguing that no work was performed for the defendants, and complains that they have in any event failed to specify the salaries claimed or the period covered.
next post