SUMMARY

Constitutional litigation – Fundamental human rights – Criminal procedure – Right of accused to a fair trial in terms of section 12 (1) (c) of the Constitution of Lesotho 1993 – Right of the accused to be given access to prosecution witness statements prior to trial – Where there is reasonable risk that disclosure might lead to injury or intimidation of witness or otherwise impede proper ends of justice, Court to exercise proper discretion in balancing accused’s needs for a fair trial against legitimate interests of State – Timing and manner of disclosure – Principle of constitutional avoidance and principle of adjudicative subsidiarity encapsulated in the proviso to section 22(2) of the Constitution discussed.

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.

Constitutional Law - declaratory order sought by Applicants — to set aside appointments of 1st Respondent and foreign Judges - applicants allerging control of JSC by Executive arm of Government - said to interfere in appointments to ensure harsh punishment for Applicants — violating principle of independence of the Judiciary — and possible outcome being violation of Applicants right to a fair hearing before an impartial Court — whether case for Applicants established and proved — costs order in Constitutional Cases — court may not depart from the accepted rules and principles unless the Applicants case is frivolous and vexatious.
 

Application for habeas corpus and release from unlawful detention – Applicants’ relatives applying to court – Whether relatives have locus-standi – Constitution 1993, section 22(1)

Liberty – Detention – Lawfulness – Prescribed purpose – Applicants arrested and detained in police custody on charge of robbery – Period of detention extending beyond the constitutional and statutory period of 48 hours – No charge laid throughout period of detention and applicants not brought before court for remand – Warrants for further detention granted without notice to applicants or their lawyer – Whether restriction of liberty imposed for purposes other than those prescribed in the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act – Constitution 1993, sections 4(1)(b), 6; Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, 1981 sections 32, 33 and 34

Individual application – Hindrance – Access to lawyer while in detention – Legal representation when application for further detention made – Applicants’ lawyer denied access by the police – Interrogation used as reason for denying access to lawyer and family members – Whether infringement of the right to legal advice and legal representation – Constitution 1993; Judges’ Rules.

Interrogation by police – Denial of access to lawyer – Evidence collected in the process  - Whether evidence to be declared inadmissible in subsequent trial – Whether right to presumption of innocence violated – Constitution 1993, section 12(2) (a).

Application to declare sections 104,102 and 101 of the Penal Code Act no.6 of 2010 inconsistent with the Constitution----Held, on account of the impugned sections’ overbreadth, vagueness of the concepts used, the availability of civil remedies and the overall undesirability of criminalizing defamation, they are declared inconsistent with section 14 of the Constitution---held further that the declaration of invalidity shall operate retrospectively. Applicant awarded costs of suit