Mohloai Mpesi
DISGRUNTLED opposition parties have vowed to appeal a Constitutional Court ruling nullifying the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution.
The judgment was delivered on Friday by the three High Court judges sitting as a Constitutional Court.
Opposition politicians said the Ninth Amendment had been effected to avoid keeping the country in election mode. It was not sustainable to call for general elections whenever a Prime Minister was ousted through a no confidence motion. Lesotho could barely afford that. They therefore want the Court of Appeal to overturn the judgment.
The Basotho National Party (BNP) leader, Machesetsa Mofomobe, told the Sunday Express yesterday that they (opposition) were going to appeal. Their lawyers were already working on the appeal application.
He said the two judges on the panel misdirected themselves while only Justice Keketso Moahloli seemed to understand the powers of parliament in exercising its role to make laws.
Justice Moahloli issued a dissenting judgement on procedural grounds. He essentially said the Ninth Amendment would have stood if it had been passed properly in terms of provisions stipulated for amending the constitution. He thus outlawed it for different reasons (see story on page 2).
The other two judges, Justices T?eliso Monapathi and Molefi Makara outlawed the Ninth Amendment for contradicting what they described as the basic structure of the Constitution as set out in section 1 of the Constitution.
Mr Mofomobe said they were not agreeing with the judges and would thus escalate the matter to the Court of Appeal.
“We respect the court’s judgement but we disagree with it….We are thus appealing it at the Court of Appeal,” Mr Mofomobe said.
“We agree with the dissenting voice of Justice Moahloli because he is correct. He has a clear understanding of powers of parliament to make laws.
“There are no holier clauses in the constitution than other clauses. We believe that the two judges, who constitute a majority, misdirected themselves and they need to be corrected.”
Mr Mofomobe also said they hoped their appeal would be heard expeditiously by the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal’s normal session is pencilled for April this year. However, the apex court does convene for special cases when a request has been put.
“The Prime Minister is appointed by Members of Parliament. When the MPs are no longer satisfied with his performance, they should have the power to remove him without him running to His Majesty to call for elections with money that is not even budgeted for,” Mr Mofomobe said.
“So, Kotopo (slang name for Ninth Amendment) was made to cut the costs of holding the elections before a parliament’s five-year term lapses. I still believe that Kotopo is needed hence we are going to appeal,” he said.
Former Minister of Law and Justice, who is also the Popular Front for Democracy (PFD) leader, Advocate Lekhetho Rakuoane, said the Ninth Amendment had been well thought out to save the country money by avoiding the holding of frequent unnecessary elections. In fact, Adv Rakuoane was the main driver of the Ninth Amendment. He thus disagreed with the judgment.
He said snap elections were a setback for national development as they consumed a lot of unbudgeted funds that could be used elsewhere for productive purposes.
For instance, he said former Prime Minister Pakalitha Mosisili had raided funds from the National Manpower Development Secretariat – used to bankroll bursaries for Basotho students – because there was no budget for the snap elections he called to avoid a no confidence motion in 2017. Such profligacy on unnecessary elections was not tenable, he said.
“Where will Ntate Matekane get the money for elections if he loses the no confidence motion and resorts to calling for elections again?” asked Adv Rakuoane.
“So, when we go to the Court of Appeal, we are going to ask all these questions
“Where are they going to get M400 million to M500 million to hold snap elections if Matekane calls for such elections to avoid being legitimately voted out?”
He said Lesotho would remain a “laughing stock” if parliaments were not allowed to last their full five-year tenures and prime ministers repeatedly dissolved them to save their own skins.