MASERU – THE Revolution for Prosperity (RFP) leader, Sam Matekane, last weekend made desperate pleas for unity after disgruntled election candidates launched fresh legal challenges against the party.
Matekane’s call for unity came two days after 16 members who were edged out from standing for the party in the October 7 general election filed an urgent application in the High Court.
The 16 want the High Court to rule that they were legitimately elected in the primary elections conducted by the party and must be allowed to stand as candidates during the election.
They argue that the party acted unlawfully by handpicking other people to be the official candidates despite that those people had lost to them in the primary elections.
Speaking at a rally in Maputsoe on Sunday, Matekane literally begged the party members not to resort to the courts to resolve disputes.
He said disgruntled members must sit down and talk instead of going to court.
“If we have issues amongst ourselves, let us sit down and fix them together,” Matekane said.
“The courts cannot find an amicable solution for us.”
Those who challenged Matekane in court last week are Dr Mahali Phamotse, Teboho Notši, Sello Hakane, Malothoane Mathiba, Mabote Malefane, Khotso Motseki, Teboho Malataliana,
‘Mammako Mohale Lerata, Chopho Lekholoane, Mphelela Khaoli, Motheo Ralitapole, Matabane Mosese, Monotsi Maliehe, ‘Makatleho Motsoasele, Mooki Sello and Tankisang Mosito.
The 16 RFP members who have been sued are Phumane Mojalefa, Malehanye Ralejoe, Talenta Masoatsa, Mofero Selupe, Lekese Matsoso, ‘Mantšali Yengane, Moleboheng Sefali, Kenny Atang Ntoane, Thabang Rapapa, Koena Marase, Thabiso Lekhotla, Mokete Jonas, Lebona Mphatsoe, Retšelisitsoe Theko, Motho-oa-sebaka Mosenki Letsie and Mamamello Holomo.
Matekane said his party is trying to resolve these disputes through dialogue.
“Do not allow the enemy to infiltrate you. I assure you that we are fixing it.”
Matekane reasoned that the RFP “only wants a Lesotho that will benefit every Mosotho equally”.
“Things will be okay, let us have patience.”
It is a message that has found no takers within the disgruntled camp. At the time of writing, the 16 were plodding on with the court case.
Dr Phamotse and her co-applicants argue that they were legitimately elected as candidates in their respective constituencies.
They argue that the party must therefore allow them to stand in the general election on the RFP ticket.
Their arguments are similar to those advanced in 1998 in a case where a Matsieng member of the Basutoland Congress Party (BCP), ’Mamonki Khalema-Redeby, challenged her party’s decision to replace her with another candidate, ’Mamahao Lehloenya.
Delivering judgment in the matter, Justice Semapo Peete said the application was “of great importance since it touches upon a fundamental human right guaranteed by the Lesotho Constitution”.
Justice Peete said the constitution clearly says “every citizen shall enjoy the right … to take part in the conduct of public affairs directly or through freely chosen representatives … to vote or to stand for election at periodic elections under this Constitution under a system of universal and equal suffrage and secret ballot”.
“To do otherwise would be to permit instances of violations of those very sacred fundamental rights which our constitution seeks to protect and guarantee,” Justice Peete said.
“This court therefore has power to determine the consistency or inconsistency of any act, provision or directive made by anybody public or private to ensure that the contents thereof accord with the principles of the Constitution,” he said.
“It is a fundamental right to be enjoyed by every citizen of Lesotho to engage in elections under a system of universal suffrage and also to choose freely their representatives in Parliament and other public bodies.”
The BCP leadership, as does the RFP now, argued that it was “entitled to select possible candidates” even though there was no such provision in its own constitution.
“Assuming for the purposes of argument that the BCP constitution has a specific article vesting in the NEC power so to select, it is my honest view that such a provision would not be held to be consistent with the fundamental provisions of section 20 of the Lesotho Constitution,” Justice Peete found.
“Whilst the courts of law should not and must not interfere in the governance of constituted societies like a political party, the courts of law have a sacred duty to see that the fundamental rights and freedoms of the citizen are not abridged or compromised,” he said.
The judge said selection or election is not a “closed house” and out of bounds when the fundamental provisions of the Lesotho Constitution are imperilled, or when principles of fairness and natural justice are compromised.
“Supreme as it is, the Constitution of the party is however to be interpreted in a manner which is consistent with the provisions and principles of the Lesotho Constitution,” he said.
“Even if there was an inherent power “to save the party” this power cannot give the NEC power to assume the basic right to select a representative for a constituency,” he said, adding that “to endorse such a selection would be to make a sham of free elections in a democratic country”.
He was rebuffing the BCP leadership’s argument that it could reject a recommendation if it was satisfied that the person so recommended could not uphold principles, aims and objectives of the party, the same reasons the RFP has been advancing in its rallies.
“If an unacceptable candidate has been elected at the Constituency level, the NEC certainly has all right and indeed a duty – to order a re-election of an appropriate person but not to select such a candidate,” the judge concluded.
Nkheli Liphoto