News

‘We’re not stoking chaos’

Published

7 years ago

July 13, 2018

MASERU – A few weeks ago the Minister of Mines Keketso Sello accused some lobby groups of fanning chaos in the mining sector. Although Sello did not mention names it is clear he was referring to the Transformation Resources Centre (TRC), an ecumenical lobby group that has been working with the Kao community to pile pressure on the Kao Mine.
The minister said the lobby groups were instigating communities to fight the mines. Kao Mine, which has borne the brunt of most of the community protests this year, has similarly accused the groups of being the hidden head in the strife at the mine.

thepost this week spoke to Hlalele Hlalele, TRC’s Social Justice and Socio-Economic Rights officer, about these allegations in a wide-ranging interview. Below are excerpts from the interview:

What do you say to the allegations that TRC is instigating trouble at the mines?

That kind of accusation is not new to this organisation. When people are faced with problems and they are supposed to solve them they raise other issues to deflect attention. If we are talking about environmental damage the mine does not disagree that there are issues.

It does not disagree that it has been discussing with the community over some issues that have not been resolved. We are talking about compensation that has not been done in a fair way.
Some people have been compensated more than others and the basis of that is not clear. Some things are just not right.
We should focus on those people who are affected and insist on enforcing the law. If the environment regulations have been breached we should enforce the law. When we raise these issues they then come up with such accusations to derail the people’s focus.

The Minister of Mines has failed to perform his job because he has not been consistent. At one meeting he asked the people to decide what kind of shares they want from the mine and then later he changed course to accuse us of instigating the people. If mines are not following the state laws we have to ask why he (the Minister) is changing positions on certain issues.

You still have not addressed the allegation that you are instigating the community.

We capacitate communities to know their rights and demand them. People are supposed to get what is due to them. There are issues of informal agreements mines make to communities. They would say you will get jobs and development in your area. In Kao there was agreement to maintain the road from Kao to Ha Lejone.

It was an agreement that included the Kao community, Kao Mine and Liqhobong Mine. Present were TRC and the Ministry of Public Works and Transport. It was agreed that Kao Mine would repair the road to Tlaeeng while Liqhobong Mine would maintain the road from Kao to Ha Lejone.

But the agreement was drafted in a tricky way in that it allows the mines to repair the roads when it suits them.

So if Liqhobong Mine is responsible for the Kao to Ha-Lejone road why then is the pressure on Kao Mine which is already maintaining the Tlaeeng road as agreed?

The community is saying the mine used to use that road (Kao to Ha-Lejone) and it promised to maintain it. I must however say that the initial agreement between Kao Mine and the community to maintain that road was not written. In 2013 that road was well maintained.

There is now a written agreement stipulating the responsibilities of each mine. Why is TRC not telling the community that the Kao to Ha-Lejone road is Liqhobong Mine’s responsibility?

Kao mine promised things to the people of Kao. Each mine made promises to its community. The tricky part is that when Kao started using the Tlaeeng road it shifted the burden to maintain the Kao to Ha-Lejone road on Liqhobong Mine.

How is that so? You just said the community was part of the new agreement. TRC was also part of the new agreement. So the community and TRC know about that new agreement. Why is the pressure still on Kao Mine?

Before the agreement Kao said it has an agreement with the Minister of Mines to maintain the Tlaeeng road and Liqhobong Mine will take the Kao to Ha-Lejone. When we asked for that agreement it was not there so we came up with this new one.

What I am saying is that TRC was present during the negotiations because it wanted the discussed issues to be in the written agreement.
But because we are facilitators we were just making sure there was a discussion and an understanding but we were not on the drafting side of the final agreement.

So if there were consultations on the new agreement to maintain the roads why is TRC insisting on an unwritten agreement that is obviously disputed? Why is TRC not helping the community to insist on the implementation of the new agreement?

I know that there is no written agreement. Here on my table are a bunch of documents showing that there were studies and consultations with the communities. They are showing that there was an agreement with the community. For any mine to get the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) certificate it has to prove that it has consulted the people.
The problem is that there is no evidence that people were consulted. There is no document signed to prove that consultation. The Ministry of Tourism and Environment merely verifies whether the mine was in the community and whether there was some form of agreement.

It doesn’t demand that there be a written agreement. The mines are taking advantage of that lack of written agreement with the communities. They are cunning.

Is that not a problem of the policies of the government? Surely if the policies are not strong enough companies find a way around them.

It’s a ministerial problem. That is why the civil society is advocating for a Public Participation law that can help our work in that we can have an agreed model on how things should be done.
You will realise that while consultation is part of the public participation process it is not public participation on its own. In real sense it should be about ownership and partnership.

If the government would hear that it would see that there are problems with the system. Even people who have PhDs don’t understand much about the concept of public participation.
In the absence of written agreements we believe the communities because companies have professionals who know what should be done but they deliberately choose not to do the proper thing.

Why are the communities and TRC not fighting the contractor hired by the government to repair the Kao to Ha-Lejone road? We understand the contractor was paid millions by the government but did a shoddy job.

When you take Article Two of the agreement it says the Ministry of Public Works and Transport would help in the negotiations between the contractor and Liqhobong Mine over the maintenance of that road.
The idea was that if Liqhobong Mine constructs certain structures the contractor would use his money elsewhere in that part of the road.
It was the function of the Department of Roads to monitor the contractor especially after getting some assistance from Liqhobong Mine.
You can therefore see that while the TRC was involved in the negotiations its mandate did not include monitoring the work on the road.

That sounds fair enough but then why does TRC think it is right for the community to block the Tlaeeng Road when it’s the one that is well maintained? How does it help the Kao community to block the Tlaeeng Road used by Kao Mine yet the problem is with the Kao to Ha-Lejone road used by Liqhobong Mine?

What I want to say is that there was an agreement between the mines. What I am trying to say is that if Liqhobong is not meeting its obligation the Kao community uses what it has to protest. Here I mean the Tlaeeng road.
They were saying if the Kao to Ha-Lejone road is not maintained lets close this Tlaeeng road so that these companies use the bad road. Remember that Liqhobong Mine is also using this road but it agreed to maintain the Kao to Ha-Lejone.
The Kao community wants the mines to remind each other of the responsibility to maintain the Kao to Ha-Lejone road.

And TRC doesn’t find it prudent to remind the people of the agreement between the mines?

We do educate them. We educated them about the rules. But they say they don’t have a clear agreement with Kao Mine over the Kao to Ha-Lejone road. It’s going to be difficult for them to push Liqhobong Mine to maintain the road. So they would rather deal with Kao Mine.
The community is looking at this as a system. When the Kao to Ha-Lejone road is not maintained they deal with the road system so that each mine is reminded of its responsibility. If the system has collapsed the mine will remind each other of their respective roles.

Is it not the responsibility of the government to build and maintain the roads?
It’s the role of the government but this is complicated by the very same companies. When they come they ask what kind of development people want.
In Kolo Mine, for instance, there is a long list from as far back as 2009 where the community listed its demands. The problem comes when the mines have promised services and when the community demands them.
Unfortunately we are not a developmental state but a rent seeking state in which the state looks for minor benefits like lease fees and royalties. If we were a developmental state the government would be asking for development.
The mines would not take Corporate Social Responsibility (CRS) as a developmental tool because the truth is that it is a marketing tool.

Are you saying mines should develop areas? How is that their responsibility?

I am saying the presence of the mine should come with development. The presence of the mines should lead to development. But that can be done by government only when they can regulate the mines properly.
This government talks about jobs but doesn’t say how much are they paying. Johannesburg and Kimberly grew out of mines.

Who do you blame for the death of a villager during the protest in February?

For the death I blame the police. There were negotiations and all parties were agreeing to a common approach but the police decided to take another route. The road is not theirs and they were not going to be prejudiced in any way but they decided to fire at the protesters. I blame the police for that.

TRC is helping to establish a union at Kao mine. What right does an NGO have in establishing a union at a private company?

We have a moral obligation that when we see things not working properly we offer help. But I must say that the Construction and Mineworkers Association Union (Camau) you are referring to is an independent organisation despite the fact that its formation was a result of TRC’s work.
In order for the union to sustain itself it should have an office and an address. TRC is providing that office because it has the capacity.

But you are actively involved in Camau’s affairs. Is that part of TRC’s mandate? Isn’t TRC already dealing with community issues?

As TRC we are very clear that the mandate is between the communities and the mine. We are there to safeguard the rights of the community. But when the community member gets employed we accompany them to the gate and our job ends there.

In this case your mandate has not ended at the gate because you are now helping to form a union for the workers.

That is a question to be asked to Camau. This arrangement is not unique. In Lesotho and the world you find people who work in an organisation being on the boards of other companies.
In the board you find someone who works in other organisations. Why do you want to deprive Camau the skills it needs from someone who works for a different institution? I find it awkward that when it’s done by Camau people think it’s wrong yet it’s being done by other institutions.
They are crying about our involvement with Camau but they should know that we are planning to go international with our concerns. TRC is a social movement not a capital one. Why is it a problem when the TRC works with unions?

It is that involvement that leads to accusations that TRC is not interested in solutions but creating chaos.

We want solutions but the problem is with the loopholes we are dealing and ministries working in silos. For example, the Ministry of Mines is not always working in line with other ministries. But when the Ministry of Tourism and Environment wants EIA reports they will invite all the ministries and even stakeholders. The Ministry of Mines doesn’t do that. That is why all other ministries have problems with the mines. Initially we were engaging ministries but the portfolio committee came and the ministries withdrew. The government is not working as a unit.

You sound like you want TRC to be an authority that government consults on community issues at the mines. Where does TRC get that mandate?

We are not saying they shouldn’t do their work. We are saying in some areas they will have short-comings. Our training is oriented around social issues. We are trained in community engagement.

Staff Reporter

News

BAP appeals judge’s ruling

Published

2 days ago

January 20, 2025

The Post

MASERU

THE Basotho Action Party (BAP)’s Central Executive Committee has appealed against Justice Molefi Makara’s ruling that it has no powers to suspend Motlatsi Maqelepo and Tello Kibane.

Maqelepo is the BAP deputy leader while Kibane is the chairman of the caucus in parliament.

In a ruling delivered on Tuesday, Justice Makara said the party’s disciplinary committee did not have the powers to discipline the duo when there is a pending High Court case.

The judge also said the executive committee cannot suspend the two when there is a court case seeking to interdict it from doing so.

“The matter is sub judice and it has to be so treated,” Justice Makara said on Tuesday.

The BAP’s central executive committee suspended Maqelepo for seven years and Kibane for five years beginning last Tuesday.

Maqelepo’s suspension will end on January 7, 2032 while Kibane’s will be until January 7, 2030.

Their suspension letters from the BAP deputy secretary general Victoria Qheku, say they should not participate in any of the party’s activities.

They were suspended in absentia after they refused to attend the disciplinary hearing, which they said was illegal.

Yesterday, the BAP leader, Professor Nqosa Mahao, filed an appeal against the High Court ruling.

Professor Mahao, as the first applicant along with the BAP and the disciplinary committee, argued that Justice Makara had erred and misdirected himself when he said he had jurisdiction to interfere with the internal matters of the party.

He reasoned that the High Court ignored the prayers that are purely constitutional under the 1993 Lesotho Constitution.

He said the court erred and misdirected itself “in granting the interim prayers in the face of a jurisdictional objection where no exceptional circumstances existed, especially where the applicants would have remedies in due cause”.

“The Court a quo erred and misdirected itself in granting the interim reliefs retrospectively,” the court papers read.

Maqelepo had earlier argued that there is a court case that is pending in the High Court seeking to interdict the party from charging them in its structures without approval of the special conference he is calling.

He said the party leadership should have awaited the outcome of the case before proceeding with any disciplinary action.

“The party that is led by a professor of law continues to do dismissals despite the issue being taken to the courts,” Maqelepo said.

He said their fate in the party is in the hands of the special conference.

He appealed to all the party constituencies to continue writing letters proposing the special conference.

Maqelepo, Kibane, Hilda Van Rooyen, and ’Mamoipone Senauoane are accused of supporting a move to remove Professor Mahao from his ministerial position last year.

They were part of BAP members who asked Prime Minister Sam Matekane to fire Professor Mahao, who at the same time was pushing for the reshuffle of Tankiso Phapano, the principal secretary for the Ministry of Energy.

When Matekane ignored Professor Mahao’s demands, the latter withdrew the BAP from the coalition government. That decision was fiercely opposed by the party’s four MPs.

Maqelepo started touting members from constituencies to call for the special conference to reverse Professor Mahao and the central executive committee’s decision.

The central executive committee issued a circular stopping Maqelepo’s rallies but he continued, with the support of the other MPs.

In the BAP caucus of six MPs, it is only Professor Mahao and ’Manyaneso Taole who support the withdrawal from the government.

Majara Molupe

News

Widow fights stepchildren

Published

2 days ago

January 20, 2025

The Post

LERIBE

A Butha-Buthe widow is fighting her stepchildren in court after she accused them of making illegal withdrawals of cash from her bank account.

’Maletšela Letšela told the High Court in Tšifa-li-Mali that her four stepchildren had taken advantage of her age and gained access to her money through her late husband’s death certificate which they used to withdraw some cash.

She did not reveal how much had been withdrawn from the account.

Letšela pleaded with the court to order the children to return her late husband’s death certificate.

Maletšela was the second wife to the late Mohlabakobo Letšela.

Mohlabakobo’s first wife died in 1991.

Letšela told the court in an urgent application that she married Mohlabakobo through customary rites in 1999 and they subsequently solemnised their union by civil rights in November 2003.

“I should state that I married my husband as a widower, his wife having passed away leaving behind four children who are respondents in the matter,” Letšela said.

Letšela has two children with Mohlabakobo.

She said at the time of the first wife’s death, they had already amassed property in the form of a residential house in Mokhotlong and rental flats in Butha-Buthe.

“I have always considered this property as belonging to the children of my husband’s first marriage and continue to hold that view,” Letšela said.

“During my marriage and before my husband’s death, we built a residential property at Makopo, Ha-Letšolo, in the district of Butha-Buthe,” she said.

“I had helped my husband to raise his children as my own and we have been living together as a family at my matrimonial home located at Makopo, Ha-Letšolo, until he passed away in October 2024, after a long illness.”

Letšela said after the death of her husband, they worked peacefully with his children without any sense of animosity and they appreciated her role as the widow and joint owner of her husband’s estate.

“This feeling is aided by a written deposition signed by Refiloe and Lietsietsi Letšela (Mohlabakobo’s children from the first marriage) nominating me as the heir in respect of monies held in my husband’s name at both the First National Bank and Standard Bank of Lesotho,” she said.

She said Mohlabakobo, with the aid of the family, wrote letters to appoint her heir to his estate in the event of his death.

She said even the children rightfully appointed her as the beneficiary in respect of these monies with a clear understanding that as a spouse to their late father, she was the rightful person to claim for benefits deriving out of his estate.

She said with the aid of the letter, she was able to withdraw funds from the banks to cover the funeral costs.

“Shortly after my husband’s burial, I was approached by Refiloe, who requested an original copy of my husband’s death certificate claiming she wanted to trace funds in my husband’s bank account held at Post Bank in South Africa,” she said.

“Sensing no harm, I released the copy to her and she left in the company of her brother and sister.”

She said she had no sense at that point whatsoever that Refiloe’s intentions were malicious.

“By that time Refiloe had already assumed possession of my husband’s phone and vehicle, and I did not complain owing to my old age and my understanding that

I did not know how to operate a smart phone, and my lack of skills to drive a car,” she said.

The siblings, she said, never brought any report regarding the funds they were to trace.

“I got suspicious of their actions and immediately sought intervention from the Butha-Buthe police.”

The police called Refiloe instructing her to return the death certificate, but she informed the officer that the copy was now in the custody of her sibling Litsietsi in South Africa.

Litsietsi later responded that she would “return the certificate on Wednesday, November 20, 2024 but that did not happen rather they are now claiming they never took it”.

“Sensing that the situation had gone out of hand, I decided to go to Post Bank with the aim of tracing the movement of these children,” she said.

Letšela said the bank manager told her that the children had instituted a claim as beneficiaries of the funds using the same death certificate.

The manager, she said, advised her to secure a letter of authority from the Master of the High Court for them to handle her case.

The Master of the High Court, she said, could not help her because she did not have the original copy of the certificate.

“I have no other alternative but to seek the court’s intervention as I was advised no actions could be taken without the court’s order.”

’Malimpho Majoro

News

Knives out for Molelle

Published

1 week ago

January 13, 2025

The Post

MASERU

KNORX Molelle’s appointment as the Director General of the Directorate on Corruption and Economic Offences (DCEO) in February 2023 could have been illegal.

The Law Society of Lesotho has told Prime Minister Sam Matekane that Molelle was appointed without being admitted as a legal practitioner in Lesotho, as required by law.

The society claims the information came from a whistleblower on January 2 and was corroborated by its roll of legal practitioners in Lesotho.

The society says the appointment violates section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption and Economic Offences Act 1999 which states that a person shall not be appointed as the DCEO director general unless they have been admitted as a legal practitioner in terms of the Legal Practitioners Act.

In the letter, Advocate Ithabeleng Phamotse, the society’s secretary, tells Matekane that this requirement “is not a mere procedural formality but a substantive qualification essential to the lawful appointment of the Director General”.

“The absence of such qualification fatally impairs the appointment ab initio, rendering it null and void from the outset,” Advocate Phamotse says in the letter written on Tuesday.

The society argues that if left unaddressed the illegality undermines the credibility, effectiveness and legality of the DCEO’s operations and exposes the kingdom to serious risks, including challenges to the lawfulness of decisions and actions made by Molelle.

“Should it be confirmed that the appointment was made in contravention of the mandatory legal requirements,” Advocate Phamotse said, “we respectfully urge you to take immediate corrective action to rectify this glaring irregularity”.

Advocate Phamotse tells the prime minister that if the appointment is not corrected, the society would be “left with no alternative but to institute legal proceedings to protect the interests of justice and uphold the rule of law in Lesotho”.

“We trust that you will accord this matter your highest priority and act decisively to avert further damage to the integrity of our governance structures.”

The Prime Minister’s spokesman, Thapelo Mabote, said they received the letter but Matekane had not yet read it yesterday.

Matekane is on leave and is expected back in the office on January 14.

Questions over the validity of his appointment come as Molelle is being haunted by the damaging audio clips that were leaked last week.

The clips were clandestinely recorded by Basotho National Party leader, Machesetsa Mofomobe.

In some of the clips, Molelle appears to be describing Matekane and his deputy Justice Nthomeng Majara as idiots. He also appears to be calling Law Minister Richard Ramoeletsi a devil.

In other clips, he seems to be discussing cases. thepost has not independently verified the authenticity of the audio clips.

Staff Reporter