Constitutional Division - 2022

SUMMARY: Constitutional litigation – Collateral challenge to vindicate fundamental human rights and freedoms – Applicants claiming that they suffered pre – trial prejudices as a result of Public Accounts Committee summoning and questioning Director General of the Directorate on Corruption and Economic Offences and the Director of Public Prosecutions about their criminal case – Applicants alleging interference with prosecutorial powers and discrimination by the Director General who charged them to the exclusion of co – suspects contrary to the directive of the Director of Public Prosecutions – Director of Public Prosecutions does not account to PAC in discharging her constitutional mandate - The Directorate on Corruption and Economic Offences is not an agent of the Director of Public Prosecutions, but exercises its own prosecutorial powers – A claim for discrimination must be brought within the ambit of section 18 of the Constitution – Collateral changelle requires exceptional circumstances – Application dismissed.

SUMMARY Constitutional provisions for decision of questions as to membership of parliament- Procedure to be followed where allocation of proportional representation seats is in issue – Discussion on section 69 of the Constitution and its reference in the Electoral Act.

SUMMARY CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: The applicants are challenging the candidacy of the 1st respondent to stand for election into the National Assembly on account of his non-compliance with section 58 (2) ( c) of the Constitution of Lesotho 1993- Held the threshold for proficiency in either official language is low, the law as it is framed does not require perfection but merely an ability to speak and write ‘well enough’ for him to be able to participate in the deliberations- Applicants not have made out a case for disqualification of the 1st respondent- Application accordingly dismissed except for a prayer which calls on Parliament to enact laws regulating citizenship matters in terms of Eighth Amendment to the Constitution Act 2018-Intemperate use language in affidavits- Counsel mulcted with costs de bonis proprii for allowing insulting and intemperate language to find its way into the affidavits.

SUMMARY Constitutional law – declaration of state of emergency and recall of dissolved Parliament to deal with it – whether citizens have locus standi to litigate on basis of rule of law review – whether failure by Parliament to pass bills before it is dissolved constitutes a public emergency – whether Parliament can be recalled to pass bills it failed to pass before its dissolution – Constitution sections 23, 70 and 84 (2); Interpretation (Amendment) Act, 1993 section 27A; Parliamentary Powers and Privileges Act, 1994 section 24; National Assembly Standing Order No.106; Senate Standing Order No.95

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 Application for referral of a dispute of fact to be determined by viva voce evidence – procedure for such a referral – interlocutory application joining a new party – rules of Court to be followed.

SUMMARY Constitutional litigation – Jurisdiction of the High Court exercising constitutional jurisdiction –Prayers in the notice of motion not substantiated in founding affidavit – Attempt to amplify case in arguments – Applicant failed to found constitutional jurisdiction– Court declining jurisdiction on the application- No order as to costs.

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 Constitutional Law – motion of no confidence in the Government coupled with motion to vote by secret ballot - procedure for voting on the motions – whether the Speaker has discretionary power to depart from the procedure to vote by voice and to direct voting in secret – whether alleged intimidation and bribery of Members of Parliament by the Prime Minister constitute good reasons to vote by secret ballot - Constitution, sections 2, 20 (1), 75 (1), 81 (1), 85 (5)(a) and (8) and 119 (1); Parliamentary Powers and Privileges Act, 1994, sections 19g and 20; Standing Orders Nos. 34, 45 (1), 46, 47, 48, 97(6) and 111.