‘Mantšali Phakoana
The ex-chairperson of the National Reforms Authority (NRA), Pelele Letsoela, has made sensational claims that some former members of the body betraying the reforms process by cutting out some clauses of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution known as the Omnibus Bill, to meet their interests.
The authority was formed in 2020 to manage and lead the reforms process by conducting consultations with various stakeholders for their input into the Bill as well as to safeguard the voice of Basotho.
In an interview with theReporter this week, Letsoela alleged that the director of Development for Peace Education (DPE), Sofonia Shale, Senator Seabata Motsamai, Teboho Tolo and Kholu Tsumane had dragged the director of the Lesotho Non-Government Organisations (LCN), Sekonyela Mapetja, to manipulate the original Omnibus Bill. LCN represents civil society organisations in the country.
Letsoela also claimed that the aforementioned people had been conniving with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel (OPC) to cut out some clauses of the original Bill and substitute them with those that would serve their own interests.
He cited that Shale had been facilitating consensus building workshops between the government and part of opposition that would pave the way for the passing of a Bill that has been manipulated.
“As the former chairperson of the NRA, I find this as a betrayal to Basotho and their interests. The Bill is no longer in its original form.
“This is sabotage to the Authority’s efforts, whose they were part of. Now they have turned against it to serve their own interests,” he noted, describing his former colleagues as rebels.
“I fail to understand how they claim they represent civil society organisations, yet they fail to serve and protect the voices and interests of the people. We worked hard to ensure implementation of the decisions made by Basotho at the Multi-stakeholder National Dialogue Plenary II.
“The NRA Omnibus Bill is a major tool delivered by the authority. It contains voices of the public; it is a fundamental tool to pave a way for reforms, that is the original Bill and no any other. It should be passed as it is without anyone tampering with it. Without that Bill, there are no reforms,” Letsoela pointed out.
He further indicated the original Bill was passed through a two-thirds majority, therefore it was binding to the then NRA members.
Contacted for comment this week, both Shale and Mapetja dismissed Letsoela’s accusations.
They said the former NRA boss was misinformed and did not know the truth behind their involvement in the consensus building workshop.
Mapetja said his involvement was initiated by the government and did not have anything to do with his personal interest.
It was meant to ensure all stakeholders in the reforms reach a consensus, he told theReporter in an interview.
“My involvement in the consensus building initiative has does not have anything to do with my personal interest. This is a process involving a good-faith effort to meet the interests of all stakeholders and seek a unanimous agreement.
“A consensus building approach allows groups to reach an overwhelming agreement among relevant stakeholders and maximize possible gains to everyone. That is the interest we are driving as the civil society organisations,” Mapetja noted.
For his part, Shale said he was invited by the government to facilitate the consensus building workshops since last year because his line of duty was at the heart of public interest.
“Ntate Letsoela was also invited and he witnessed the proceedings but he did not complain. This year again I have been facilitating the same workshop between the Senate and political leaders in the 11th parliament, now he feels bothered by my role.
“I am so disappointed in him. As much as I respect him, I believe he is laying all these allegations out of anger or frustration by the reforms process. Had he confronted me before, he would have been well informed about what my interests are.
“My interest is to see the reforms process seeing the light of the day at the end and not failing. I’m free to contribute to any sector that believes I can help them reach that,” Shale explained.
Asked which of the two Bills was the original one, Shale said he would not choose between ‘the manipulated Bill’ and ‘original Bill’ lest he is seen to be lacking objectivity.
On Tuesday this week, the House of the Senate made a resolution to declare some of the proceedings on the 11th Amendment to the Constitution null and void.
According to the Notice of the urgent Motion issued this week, this was due to irregularities which were obtained during its enactment on July 13, 2022.
“The Committee of the Whole House Report and Third readings stages were flawed to the extent that the amendments suggested by the committee of the Whole House were not dispatched to the National Assembly as a single message provided by the Standing Order No. 61(5), but they were sent in batches.
“The net effect of the above was that the Senate and the National Assembly were simultaneously examining that Bill, and as a result the democratic principles of checks and balances was compromised,” reads the motion.
At a press conference this month, deputy prime minister and minister of justice, law and parliamentary affairs, Nthomeng Majara said when the current government took office, the OPC and civil servants dealing with the reforms told them that the Bill that had lapsed during the end of the 10th parliament was the original one.
“I was told by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel and other civil servants that the Bill that lapsed during the end of the 10th parliament was the original one and the manipulated Bill was the one that ended during the second consensus building workshop, if I understood them correctly,” she said, adding they were advised by experts to revive the said Bill because it was already going through consultations between the Senate and National Assembly.
“It should be understood that it is in the legislators’ mandate to decide whether they revive, pass or throw away laws. The NRA was established by the legislators therefore it is in their mandate as law enforcers to decide which laws to proceed with,” Majara stated.
However, Omnibus Bill which lapsed during the end term of the 10th parliament was challenged in the Constitutional Court by the chairperson of the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) Lesotho Chapter, Kananelo Boloetse, and a political party named Yearn for Economic Sustainability (YES). The two parties asked the court to order the cancellation of a parliamentary special sitting on Monday this week to deliberate on the reforms process and consider passing the 11th Amendment to the Constitution of Lesotho.
The sitting was then moved to Tuesday this week but the Bill failed to sail after the opposition challenged its passing citing a pending court case by Boloetse and YES party.
They also argued that there was need for a consensus building workshop for all the legislators to familiarise themselves with the Bill. The sitting was again moved to next week Tuesday.
The applicants had argued in their Constitutional Court papers last week Thursday that the 11th parliament cannot be called from winter recess to pass draft laws, most significantly the Omnibus Bill.
“The Omnibus Bill and other draft laws which lapsed at the expiry of the last parliament now belong to the ‘graveyard’ and cannot simply be brought to life and passed by the 11th parliament.
“The new parliament has an obligation to originate and pass its own laws, instead of revisiting ‘dead’ Bills. The reforms process must thus be started anew,” they argued.
The National Assembly speaker, Tlohang Sekhamane, Senate president ‘Mamonaheng Mokitimi, clerk of the National Assembly Fine Maema, minister of law, justice and parliamentary affairs justice Nthomeng Majara, the Senate, the National Assembly, His Majesty King Letsie III and Attorney-General Rapelang Motsieloa are cited as respondents, respectively.
The applicants further submitted that parliamentarians should not be allowed to pass laws which their predecessors failed to enact. They also said some provisions of the Omnibus Bill were a direct attack on the freedom of the media.
“I and/or applicants are unhappy with the 11th Amendment to the Constitution Bill 2022, since we were not heard, and parliament had not exercised the jurisdictional fact whether to involve us or not.
“It compromises freedom of expression and freedom of the press to the extent that it purports to reinstate criminal defamation abolished by this court. Therefore, it is only fair that the genesis of the Bill be from scratch to permit fair and meaningful public participation in order to safeguard the interests of the media.
“Furthermore, the procedure followed violates the constitutional procedure laid in section 78 (of the Constitution) which mandatorily dictates that the Bill will originate from the National Assembly, to the Senate, back to the National Assembly, then go to the King for Royal Assent.
“The 11th Amendment to the Constitution Bill 2022 is non-existent before the eyes of the law and does not originate from the 2023 National Assembly as required by the Constitution, but from the dusts of the graveyard of the 10th parliament,” they added.
The applicants further argued that the effect of the dissolution of the 10th parliament was not to ‘refrigerate’ and preserve the then pending businesses and Bills, but to permanently abort same. These cannot therefore be subsequently resurrected and thrown through the back window upon recalling of the 11thparliament on August 14 2023.
“The 11th parliament cannot be permitted in law, to sit in vain and expend time and labour over nothing (dead Bill) at the expense of the public purse,” the applicants wrote.
Earlier this month, local NGOs Naka-La-Mohlomi and #Bachashutdown presented their letter of concern to Prime Minister Samuel Matekane regarding the decision made by the government and opposition to revive the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.
The petitioners said the letter served to warn the government to stop with immediate effect the revival of the Omnibus Bill as it does not serve public interest but rather of the parliamentarians.
