Lephoto v The Directorate of Corruption and Economic Offences (Const. No. 11/2017) [2022]LSHC 09 (17 March 2022);

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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO
HELD AT MASERU Constitutional Case No. 11/2017
In the matter between:
`MAHELENA LEPHOTO APPLICANT
AND
THE DIRECTORATE ON CORRUPTION
AND ECONOMIC OFFENCES 1ST RESPONDENT
THE MINISTER OF LAW AND