…as families accuse LMPS of discriminatory treatment
Moorosi Tsiane
WIDOWS and relatives of deceased police officers have taken the Lesotho Mounted Police Service (LMPS) to court, demanding M2.7 million in accumulated leave benefits they say their loved ones earned but were never paid before their deaths.
The 22 applicants are seeking an order compelling Chief of Police Advocate Borotho Matsoso and Attorney General Rapelang Motsieloa to pay M2 728 380.37 in outstanding leave benefits, together with interest at 10 percent per annum from the date of summons until full payment.
The applicants, who include spouses, children and parents of deceased officers, contend that their loved ones were repeatedly prevented from taking leave because of operational demands and instructions from their superiors. As a result, the officers’ leave days accumulated over several years, leaving substantial amounts unpaid.
In an affidavit supporting the application, one of the applicants, Mapuleng Kalaila, says the deceased officers had accumulated leave days that were payable under established LMPS practice.
Ms Kalaila argues that the officers could not take their leave when it fell due because they were sometimes instructed to remain on duty or recalled from leave to attend to work emergencies.
“The deceased persons were authorised not to go on leave when leave was due,” she states in the court papers.
She adds that some officers were recalled from leave when emergencies arose, leaving them with no option but to cut their leave short and return to duty.
“The deceased were recalled from leave when work emergencies required and they had no option but termination of leaves,” she states.
According to Ms Kalaila, the untaken leave days were carried over to subsequent calendar years, eventually accumulating into substantial benefits owed to the officers.
The applicants argue that their claims are not unprecedented, maintaining that the LMPS has previously paid accumulated leave benefits to the surviving spouses of other deceased officers.
They allege that the service had an established practice of compensating officers who were unable to use their accumulated leave before retirement and subsequently died before reaching retirement age.
“The members of the LMPS, as a matter of established practice, were paid for leaves not taken at the behest of the Commissioner of Police if they had not been able to utilise the accumulated leave days during retirement but met their respective demise before the retirement day,” Ms Kalaila states.
The applicants further allege that, from 2021 onwards, the LMPS paid accumulated leave benefits to surviving spouses of deceased officers.
They claim that more than 30 families have received such payments and that the transactions can be verified through records containing beneficiaries’ names, payment dates, voucher numbers and amounts paid.
The applicants contend that the refusal to settle their claims amounts to unjustified discrimination, particularly because other bereaved families have allegedly received similar benefits.
“The applicants are being differentiated without any justification,” the court papers state.
They further argue that their claims are consistent with the treatment of members of other disciplined forces in Lesotho, where they allege accumulated leave benefits are paid.
The applicants maintain that the outstanding amounts arose from leave days their loved ones could not take through no fault of their own, but because of operational demands and instructions issued during their service.
According to the application, officers could be prevented from taking leave when their superiors directed them to remain on duty, operational demands intervened or they were not instructed to proceed on leave during a particular year.
The applicants say they have formally demanded payment from the respondents, but their claims remain unsettled.
They are asking the court to order payment of the respective amounts due to each qualifying applicant, together with interest at 10 percent per annum from the date of summons until full payment.
They are also seeking legal costs, including the costs of engaging two counsel, as well as any further relief the court may deem appropriate.