HR

Ramakatsa and Others v Commissioner of Police and Others (Constitutional Case No.22/2018) [2019] LSHCONST 1 (16 April 2019);

Share
Flynote: 
Search Summary: 

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).

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

Held at Maseru

CONSTITUTIONAL CASE NO.22/2018

 

In the matter between:

 

‘MAABELE RAMAKATSA                                               1ST APPLICANT

NTSOAKI SENTJE                                                               2ND APPLICANT

Peta v Minister of Law, Constitutional Affairs and Human Rights (CC 11/2016) [2018] LSHC 3 (18 May 2018);

Share
Search Summary: 

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

 IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF LESOTHO

                                                                                         CC 11/2016

In the matter between

 

BASILDON PETA                                                           APPLICANT

AND

THE MINISTER OF LAW, CONSTITUTIONAL           FIRST RESPONDENT

AFFAIRS AND HUMAN RIGHTS                                                     

Independent Electoral Commission v Minister of Local Government and Chieftainship (CC 09/16) [2016] LSHC 8 (05 December 2016);

Share
Flynote: 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

 

 

Held at Maseru

Constitutional case No.9/16

 

In the matter between:

 

INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL

COMMISSION                                         APPLICANT

         

And

 

THE MINISTER OF LOCAL

GOVERNMENT          & CHIEFTAINSHIP                          1ST RESPONDENT

 

Ralekoala v Minister of Human Rights, Justice And Constitution Affairs and Others (CONSTITUTIONAL CASE: 03/11) [2012] LSHC 8 (30 March 2012);

Share

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

                        (Sitting as the Constitutional Court)

 

Pages