SUMMARY

Constitutional law – delimitation of constituency boundaries – review of constituency boundaries – whether the review made within the prescribed period – whether elections should be held when constituency boundaries have not been reviewed and altered according to the provisions of the Constitution – Constitution, ss.67 and 84; National Assembly Electoral Act No.14 of 2011, sections 142 and 153; Interpretation Act No. 19 of 1977.

SUMMARY

Constitutional Law – Application for an order to declare as unlawful, null and void and of no force and effect the decision of the National Executive Committee (NEC) of Alliance of Democrats (AD) party to hold a constituency elective conference for fresh election of a nominee between the Applicant and 4th Respondent in Mt Moorosi No.67 Constituency to represent the AD in the forthcoming 2022 national elections – Held: Applicant’s nomination effected under the old Mt Moorosi Contituency before the enactment of the Delimitation Order April 2022 no longer enforceable – Mt Moorosi No.67 Constituency being a new constituency following demarcation of new boundaries which has combined the old Mt Moorosi constituency and parts of the abolished Sebapala No.66 Constituecny – Respondents’ decision to hold constituency election for the Mt Moorosi No. 67 Constituency afresh justifiable given the circumstances of the case and is in line with principle of democracy; fairness and natural justice - Application dismissed.

                                                       SUMMARY

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Application to have section 98(4) of the Money Laundering and Proceeds of Crime Act no.40 of 2008 declared unconstitutional for violating section 12 of the Constitution, in that it permits the concurrent running of criminal and civil proceedings in respect of the same property seized in terms of it- she had argued that, given this scenario, it forces her to disclose her defence in civil proceedings thereby  forcing her to waive her right to self-incrimination with the consequence that her pending criminal trial is prejudiced- Held, this section does not force an applicant faced with forfeiture application to incriminate herself, what it rather does is to leave her with the choice between leaving forfeiture application go unchallenged and substantively responding to it, held that for this reason, this section is constitutional.

-The applicant had further sought to have a three-year delay to charge her with criminal offences following her suspension from work, violated her right to be tried within a reasonable time in terms of section 12 of the Constitution, Held, pre-charge delay in preferring charges not protected by the right to speedy trial a provided under section 12 of the Constitution, the reckoning of time within which a person must be tried starts after charges have been read  not before.

Summary

Diplomats based in South Africa - differently salaried from diplomats in other missions-challenge on the differentiation on constitutional grounds - whether approach appropriate where a complaint may adequately be addressed under Administrative Law

Exercise of jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 22 of the Constitution - principles guiding the excise of discretion under this provision restated - Court declines jurisdiction.

SUMMARY

Constitutional law – appointment of a principal secretary contrary to section 139(1) of the Constitution – whether such appointment valid. Whether appellant was appointed by the new Prime Minister.

Held: there was no valid appointment and appeal dismissed with costs.

Summary: Constitutional law- The applicants who are the former Government Secretary, and Principal Secretaries in various Government ministries are suing Government for discrimination, having been made to pay back their loans after similar-circumstanced parliamentarians were absolved from paying back theirs-Held, this constituted discrimination based on ‘other status’.

The applicants are employed by the Government of Lesotho as what are called Executive Secretaries. They are attached to the offices of the Attorney General and the Judges of the High Court and the Court of Appeal. Alongside the position of Executive Secretary there exists what are called Ministerial Secretaries. These cadres shared the same grading in terms of salary and benefits. All that suddenly changed when on the 11th April 2007 the Ministry of Public Service (the 1st Respondent) issued a circular titled: RE: Offices of the Ministers and Assistant Ministers Privileges or Personal Staff. The upshot of this circular was to upgrade the position of Ministerial Secretaries. The Executive Secretaries were not included in the up-grading. They charge that their exclusion is unconstitutional as it violates the provisions of sections 18 and 19 of the Constitution of Lesotho. They seek a declaration to the effect. They want the 1st Respondent to forthwith upgrade their position to that equal to Ministerial Secretary with effect from 2nd March 2007 being the date when the ministerial secretaries upgrading came into force and that as I understand them, the difference be paid in arrear from that date. They allege that they are being discriminated against because the functions of Ministerial Secretaries are the same as those of the Executive Secretaries of the Judges, Attorney General and that the entry requirements are also the same.