Connect with us


Fresh battle over SA wool sales



 MASERU-YOU cannot have your cake and eat it.
That, in a nutshell, seems to be the government’s candid message to wool farmers insisting on selling their wool directly to South Africa.
For two years the 40 000-odd farmers fought the government’s regulations forcing them to sell their wool locally.

The government eventually begrudgingly relented and repelled the controversial regulations. Now farmers can choose to sell their wool locally or in South Africa.

But the government, perhaps still bent on localising wool sales, has made it a hard choice.
It has told farmers that they will have to sponsor veterinary doctors to travel to South Africa to certify their wool before it is auctioned and exported.

That means the government is refusing to carry the cost of certifying wool from its own farmers.
For the farmers, this means additional costs that might run into about half a million every season.

It’s a decision that has caught farmers by surprise because the government has always sponsored veterinarian doctors’ trips to Port Elizabeth.
The farmers only discovered the new arrangement from a letter the Ministry of Agriculture’s Principal Secretary, Nchakha Makara, recently wrote to the South African Wool and Mohair Buyers Association (Sawamba).

In that letter Makara told Sawamba, the association of buyers, that the government will no longer sponsor its veterinarians to certify Lesotho’s wool.
“The Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security has resolved that all those who wish to continue sending their wool to South Africa, mainly Port Elizabeth, who will need services of the government veterinarians to certify their wool to international markets, should take full responsibility of paying for travelling, meals and accommodation costs for veterinarians and their drivers,” Makara said.

He also demanded that there be clarity on who between Sawamba, BKB and the Lesotho Wool and Mohair Grower’s Association (LWMGA) will incur the costs associated with those trips.
According to the letter a veterinary doctor and a driver are supposed to spend three days and two nights in Port Elizabeth verifying the Lesotho fibre.

The cost includes M3 000 for fuel and M29 280 allowances for both the vet and driver.  
This means in a season about M500 000 would be spent on 15 trips. Sawamba responded on Septembers 1, agreeing to cover the cost of three trips for the September catalogue but cautioned the government to remember that farmers will pay the bills.

Sawamba’s letter to Makara shows that in September alone veterinarians might make five trips to South Africa to certify the wool. This means in September alone the farmers might pay M161 400 for the trips.
On September 4 Sawamba’s manager, Glynnis Gillwald, wrote to Makara saying they are willing to subsidise the allowances with a maximum of M5 000 a day per person and the M3 000 fuel per trip for the next three trips until September 30.

“Sawamba, however, proposes that in an effort to reduce the costs, the South African industry makes the accommodation and transport arrangements, which are to be deducted from the US$305 (M4 880) per person per day,” Gillwald said.
She said the Sawamba board also expressed concern about the high cost of the trips in light of the 30 percent drop in wool prices.
“These high charges will be to the detriment of the Lesotho wool growers,” Gillwald said.

“In an effort to obtain the best possible prices for the Lesotho growers at the lowest possible cost, Sawamba respectfully requests that serious consideration be given to reducing the costs to more realistic amounts in Rand terms.”

“These costs will then be paid for by Sawamba.”
LMWGA spokesperson, Khotsang Moshoeshoe, has described the move as “another tactic by the government to frustrate farmers”.
Moshoeshoe said the government has previously asked the LMWGA to sponsor the doctors when it doesn’t have the money.

“We have never failed to honour their request in the past but running to Sawamba clearly shows that they are just trying to slow things down,” he said.
 “They (government) still do not want to own up to their mistakes, they are still trying to prove a point that their suggested localisation of the industry works despite its dismal failure.”
He said during the last auction the government was reluctant to send veterinary doctors to PE.

“The vet left on Sunday to certify wool that should have been certified on Wednesday and was certified only on Monday after we made a lot of noise about it.”
Makara told thepost that he wrote to Sawamba because it is the one seeking services from government vets. He said it was a mistake to ask farmers to assist to sponsor the veterinary doctors’ trips.

“Now we are correcting that mistake so that it never happens again hence we wrote to Sawamba,” Makara said.
“Sawamba must incur the veterinary doctor’s services as it incurs shipping and insurance costs after sale.”

“We want them to cover accommodation costs, travel costs and allowances as per government standards for all public servants when on official trips,” Makara said.

Lemohang Rakotsoane



City Council bosses up for fraud



THREE senior Maseru City Council (MCC) bosses face charges of fraud, theft, corruption and money laundering.

Town clerk Molete Selete and consultant Molefe Nthabane appeared in the Maseru Magistrate’s Court yesterday.

City engineer Matsoso Tikoe did not appear as he was said to be out of the country. He will be arraigned when he returns.

They are charged together with Kenneth Leong, the project manager of SCIG-SMCG-TIM Joint Venture, the company that lost the M379 million Mpilo Boulevard contract in January.

The joint venture made up of two Chinese companies, Shanxi Construction Investment Group (SCIG) and Shanxi Mechanization Construction Group (SMCG), and local partner Tim Plant Hire (TIM), has also been charged.

Selete and Nthabane were released on bail of M5 000 and surety of M200 000 each. Leong was granted bail of M10 000 and surety of M400 000 or property of the same value.

The charges are a culmination of the Directorate on Corruption and Economic Offences (DCEO) investigation that has been going on for the past months or so.

The prosecution says Selete, Nthabane, Tikoe, and Leong acted in concert as they intentionally and unlawfully abused the functions of their offices by authorising an advance payment of M14 million to a joint-venture building the Mpilo Boulevard.

An advance payment guarantee is a commitment issued by a bank to pay a specified amount to one party of a contract on-demand as protection against the risk of the other party’s non-performance.

The prosecution says the payment was processed after the company had provided a dubious advance payment guarantee. It says the officials knew that the guarantee was fake and therefore unenforceable.

As revealed by thepost three weeks ago, SCIG and SMCG were responsible for providing the payment guarantee as lead partners in the joint venture.

The prosecution says the MCC was required by law to make advance payment after SCIG-SMCG-TIM Joint Venture submitted a guarantee as per the international standards on construction contracts.

It alleges that the MCC has now lost the M14 million paid to SCIG-SMCG-TIM Joint Venture because of the fake advanced guarantee.

thepost has seen minutes of meetings in which officials from the joint venture admitted to MCC officers that the advance payment guarantee was dubious.

SCIG-SMCG-TIM kept promising to provide a genuine guarantee but never did. Yet the MCC officials did not report the suspected fraud to the police or take any action against the company.

It was only in January this year that the MCC cancelled the contract on the basis that the company had failed to provide a genuine guarantee.

Despite receiving the advance payment SCIG and SMCG refused to pay TIM Joint Venture for the initial work.

SCIG and SMCG, the lead partners in the joint venture, are reportedly suing the MCC to restore the contract. Officials from TIM Plant Hire however say they are not aware of their partners’ lawsuit against the MCC.

Staff Reporter

Continue Reading


Scott fights for free lawyer



DOUBLE-MURDER convict Lehlohonolo Scott is fighting the government to pay a lawyer to represent him in his appeal.
Scott, serving two life sentences for murdering Kamohelo Mohata and Moholobela Seetsa in 2012, says his efforts to get a state-sponsored lawyer have been repeatedly frustrated by the Registrar of the High Court, Advocate ’Mathato Sekoai.
He wants to appeal both conviction and sentence.
He has now filed an application in the High Court seeking an order to compel Advocate Sekoai to appoint a lawyer to represent him.
He tells the court that he is representing himself in that application because the Registrar has rejected his request to pay his legal fees or appoint a lawyer for him.
People who cannot fund their own legal costs can apply to the Registrar for what is called pro deo, legal representation paid for by the state.
Scott says Sekoai has told him to approach Legal Aid for assistance.
The Legal Aid office took a year to respond to him, verbally through correctional officers, saying it does not communicate directly with inmates.
The Legal Aid also said he doesn’t qualify to be their client.
“I was informed that one Mrs Papali, if I recall the name well, who is the Chief Legal Aid counsel, had said that Legal Aid does not communicate with inmates so she could not write back to me,” Scott says.
“Secondly, they represent people in minor cases. Thirdly, they represent indigent people of which she suggested I am not one of them.”
“Fourthly, there are no prospects of success in my case hence they won’t assist me.”
He says the Legal Aid’s fifth reason was that he has been in jail for a long time.
Scott is asking the High Court to set aside Sekoai’s decision and order her to facilitate pro deo services for him, saying her decision was “irregular, irrational, and unlawful”.
He argues that the Registrar’s role was to finance his case to finality, meaning up to the Court of Appeal.
The Registrar insists that the arrangement was to provide him a lawyer until his High Court trial ended.
Scott says his lawyer, Advocate Thulo Hoeane, who was paid by the state, had promised to file an appeal a day after his sentencing but he did not.
He argues that the Registrar did not hear him but arbitrarily decided to end pro deo.
Scott says he wrote to Acting Chief Justice ’Maseforo Mahase in 2018 soon after his conviction and sentencing seeking assistance but he never received any response.
Later, he wrote to Chief Justice Sakoane Sakoane in November 2020 and he received a response through Sekoai who rejected his request.
Scott tells the High Court that he managed to apply to the Court of Appeal on his own but the Registrar later told him, through correctional officers, that “the Court of Appeal does not permit ordinary people to approach it”.
He argues that “where justice or other public interest considerations demand, the courts have always departed from the rules without any problem”.
Staff Reporter

Continue Reading


Army ordered to pay up



THE Ombudsman has asked parliament to intervene to force the Lesotho Defence Force (LDF) to compensate families of people killed by soldiers.
Advocate Tlotliso Polaki told parliament, in two damning reports on Monday, that the LDF is refusing to compensate the family of Lisebo Tang who was shot dead by soldiers near the former commander, Lieutenant General Tlali Kamoli’s home in 2014.

The LDF, she said, is also refusing to compensate the family of Molapo Molapo who was killed by a group of soldiers at his home in Peka, Ha-Leburu in 2022.

Advocate Polaki wrote the LDF in January last year saying it should pay Tang’s mother, Makhola Tang, M300 000 “as a reasonable and justifiable redress for loss of support”.

The Tang family claim investigation started in February 2022 and the LDF responded that it “had undertaken the responsibility for funeral expenses and other related costs”.

Advocate Polaki investigated whether the LDF could be held accountable for Tang’s death and whether his family should be compensated while the criminal case is pending.

She found that the soldiers were “acting within the scope of their employment to protect the army commander and his family” when they killed Tang.

Soldiers killed Tang in Lithabaneng while she was in a parked car with her boyfriend at what the army termed “a compromising spot” near the commander’s residence.

The three soldiers peppered the vehicle with a volley of shots, killing Tang and wounding the boyfriend.

Advocate Polaki found that the army arranged to pay for the funeral costs and to continue buying groceries and school needs for Tang’s daughter.

The LDF, however, kept this for only four years but abruptly stopped.

When asked why it stopped, the army said “there is a criminal case pending in court”.

The army also said it felt that it would be admitting guilt if it compensated the Tang’s family.

The Ombudsman said “a civil claim for pecuniary compensation lodged is not dependent on the criminal proceedings running at the same time”.

“The LDF created a legitimate but unreasonable expectation and commitments between themselves and the complainant which had no duration attached thereto and which showed a willingness to cooperate and work harmoniously together,” Advocate Polaki found.

“The LDF was correct in withdrawing such benefit in the absence of a clear policy guideline or order to continue to offer such benefit or advantage,” she said.

“However, she should have been consulted first as the decision was prejudicial to her interest.”

She said the army’s undertaking “fell short of a critical element of duration and reasonability”.

Tang was a breadwinner working at Pick ’n Pay Supermarket as a cleaner earning M2 000 a month.

Her daughter, the Ombudsman said, is now in grade six and her school fees alone had escalated to M3 200 per year.

She said an appropriate redress should be premised on her family’s loss of income and future loss of support based on her salary and the prejudice suffered by her mother and daughter.

She said M300 000 is “a reasonable and justifiable redress for loss of support”.

In Molapo’s case, Advocate Polaki told parliament that the LDF refused to implement her recommendations to compensate his two daughters.

The complainant is his father, Thabo Joel Molapo.

The Ombudsman told the army in August last year that it should pay the girls M423 805 “for the negligent death of their father”.

Advocate Polaki said despite that the criminal matter is before the court, “it is established that the Ombudsman can assert her jurisdiction and make determinations on the complaint”.

Molapo, 32, was brutally murdered by a soldier in Peka in December 2020.

Molapo had earlier fought with the soldier and disarmed him.

The soldier, the Ombudsman found, rushed to Mokota-koti army post to request backup to recover his rifle. When he returned with his colleagues, they found him hiding in his house. The soldier then shot Molapo.

The LDF, the Ombudsman said, conceded that the soldier killed Molapo while on duty and that he had been subjected to internal disciplinary processes.

“The LDF is bound by the consequences of the officer’s actions who was negligent and caused Molapo’s death,” she said.

She found that after Molapo was killed, army officers and the Minister of Defence visited his family and pledged to pay his children’s school fees. They also promised to hire one of his relatives who would “cater for the needs of the deceased’s children going forward”.

The LDF, she said, has now reneged on its promises saying its “recruitment policy and legal considerations did not allow for such decision to be implemented”.

Molapo’s father told the Ombudsman that the LDF said “the undertakings were not implementable and were made by the minister at the time just to console the family”.

All the payments in the two cases, the Ombudsman has asked parliament, should be made within three months.

Staff Reporter

Continue Reading