…as he chairs Senate a day after Council “suspended” him
…while NUL allays fears over disruption of academic activities
Moorosi Tsiane
ACTING Vice-Chancellor, Professor Kananelo Mosito, was at work on Friday, chairing a National University of Lesotho (NUL) Senate meeting, barely a day after the university Council purported to suspend him.
His defiance marks a sharp escalation in the power struggle between Prof Mosito and the Council over his decision to reinstate the substantive Registrar, Liteboho Maqalika-Lerotholi. That decision has laid bare a deepening dispute over who holds power at the country’s premier institution of higher learning.
The Council accuses Prof Mosito of insubordination, while he maintains that the Council has exceeded the powers the law confers on it.
On Friday, Prof Mosito chaired a virtual Senate meeting of about 60 participants, at which preparations for the university’s forthcoming graduation ceremonies were discussed.
Three Senate members, Dr Mathe Ntšekhe, Professor Motšelisi Mokhethi and Professor Paseka Mosia, reportedly left the meeting before it ended. This allegedly because they are members of the same Council that resolved to suspend Prof Mosito.
NUL Director of Communications and Marketing ‘Mamosa Moteetee confirmed that Prof Mosito was at work.
“To my knowledge he is at work and chairing the Senate meeting, but if there are any new developments they haven’t reached my office. We will hear as the day goes on what is really going on,” Ms Moteetee said.
As the fight for control of the university plays out in public, social media has been awash with concern among parents and students that the turmoil could disrupt academic activities.
Ms Moteetee sought to allay those fears, insisting that teaching and learning continued as normal.
“At this level this issue doesn’t affect the students because they are administrative issues and the lectures are still continuing,” she said.
“I think the only thing that might confuse is the changes happening in offices, but it has nothing to do with their studies.”
The Council’s latest move followed Prof Mosito’s refusal to reverse his decision to lift Ms Maqalika-Lerotholi’s suspension and restore her to her substantive post. Ms Maqalika-Lerotholi had been suspended by former Vice-Chancellor Professor Isaac Olusola Fajana, whose contract expired on 31 July 2026.
In a letter to Prof Mosito dated 24 September 2026, Council chairperson Dr Khabele Matlosa said the Council had given him 24 hours to comply with an earlier directive to reverse the decision.
“The 24-hour period granted by the Council has now elapsed. Council has noted with concern that the resolution has not been implemented. Council has also noted that no report and/or proof of compliance has been received,” Dr Matlosa wrote.
He said the Council had previously warned Prof Mosito that failure to comply would amount to “insubordination and a deliberate disregard of the authority and decisions of Council”.
The Council also accused Prof Mosito and Ms Maqalika-Lerotholi of unilaterally withdrawing NUL’s opposition to a High Court application by the National University of Lesotho Student Union challenging the process through which the 16th NUL Council was constituted.
The application, filed by Student Representative Council president Tumo Tsanyane on behalf of the union, seeks to have that process set aside on the grounds that it did not comply with Section 7 of the National University of Lesotho Order, 1992. The matter is pending.
“Council has further learned with shock and dismay that you and the suspended substantive Registrar, Mrs Liteboho Maqalika-Lerotholi, have, again, unilaterally, withdrawn Council’s endorsed opposition in [the Student Union’s case] thus paving way for a challenge to Council’s constitution,” Dr Matlosa wrote.
Ms Moteetee declined to comment on the withdrawal, saying the matter was still before the courts.
Dr Matlosa accused Prof Mosito of refusing to recognise the Council’s authority and alleged that he was bent on destabilising the university.
“Accordingly, and in implementation of the resolution already adopted by Council at its sitting yesterday on 23 September 2026, you are hereby suspended from the office of Acting Vice-Chancellor with immediate effect pending further action and determination by Council,” he wrote.
Prof Mosito, however, rejected the suspension, arguing that the Council had no legal authority to remove him from office in the manner it had attempted.
In a letter he dispatched to Dr Matlosa the same day, Prof Mosito said the dispute was not merely a disagreement between himself and the Council chairperson. It concerned the legal powers vested in the university’s various organs.
“A statutory body, no less than a statutory office-holder, may exercise only the powers the law confers upon it, and must exercise them through the repository, procedure, and for the purposes prescribed by law,” Prof Mosito wrote.
He rejected the Council’s assertion that its status as the university’s supreme governing body gave it unrestricted authority over all university administration.
“Describing Council as the University’s supreme governing body does not make it the repository of every power exercisable within the University, nor does it erase the distribution of statutory functions expressly made by Parliament between Council, the Vice-Chancellor, the Registrar, Senate and other University organs,” he wrote.
Prof Mosito also challenged the authority of the Council chairperson. He cited Statute 2 of the university’s statutes, which provides that the chairperson “shall have only such executive powers in the day-to-day administration of the University as shall be authorised for a specific purpose by the Council”.
“That provision is deliberately restrictive. The Chairmanship is not an independent executive presidency of the University. It carries no general residuary authority to administer the institution,” Prof Mosito wrote.
He further maintained that he did not hold the office of Acting Vice-Chancellor at the Council’s pleasure.
Background
Prof Mosito, who is also President of the Court of Appeal, has been locked in a bitter battle with the Council since it began recruiting a successor to Prof Fajana in October 2025, before his contract expired.
Prof Mosito challenged the recruitment in the High Court in April this year, arguing that the NUL Order, 1992 required the Pro-Vice-Chancellor to assume the Vice-Chancellor’s functions once the office fell vacant.
The Council suspended him on 22 April 2026, accusing him of “rendering the university ungovernable in pursuit of personal interests which conflict with the best interests of the university that he should be protecting”. He challenged the suspension in the Labour Court. It is not clear whether the matter is still pending or has been overtaken by events.
On 1 June 2026, Acting Justice of Appeal Phillip Musonda halted the recruitment and ordered that the statutory succession mechanism be preserved.
However, when Prof Fajana’s contract expired, Prof Mosito was blocked from entering the Roma campus on 31 July and the Council appointed Professor Motlatsi Molati as Acting Vice-Chancellor. On 2 August, the Council terminated Prof Mosito’s four-year contract as Pro-Vice-Chancellor two years before its expiry. He remained a member of the academic staff in the Faculty of Law.
Prof Mosito then approached the Court of Appeal, which ruled on 14 September that the Council had failed to comply with the June order. The court declared Prof Molati’s appointment and Prof Mosito’s dismissal ineffective for as long as that order remained operative and directed that their consequences be reversed.
It did not, however, hold the university or its officials in contempt, finding insufficient basis to conclude that the non-compliance was wilful or in bad faith.
Prof Mosito returned to NUL the following day. Within two days of his return, he lifted Ms Maqalika-Lerotholi’s suspension and ended Dr Lipalesa Mathe’s appointment as Acting Registrar.
Prof Fajana had suspended Ms Maqalika-Lerotholi on 11 May 2026. She subsequently faced disciplinary proceedings over allegations including misconduct, insubordination and conduct prejudicial to the university’s interests.
However, the disciplinary proceedings had been held in abeyance after Ms Maqalika-Lerotholi approached the High Court to challenge a disciplinary committee’s refusal to refer constitutional questions arising from her disciplinary hearing for judicial determination. This matter is still pending before court.
Invoking Section 17(4) of the NUL Order, 1992, Prof Mosito terminated Dr Mathe’s acting appointment. He said it had arisen from Ms Maqalika-Lerotholi’s suspension, which he had revoked.