Majara accused of “pushing” for Ombudsman’s ouster

…But DPM vehemently refutes allegations

–Claims not responsible for appointing heads of constitutional bodies

Mohloai Mpesi

DEPUTY Prime Minister (DPM), Nthomeng Majara, has been fingered behind efforts to remove Ombudsman Advocate Tlotliso Polaki from office by blocking the extension of her contract, the Lesotho Times has been told.

But the DPM has vehemently rejected the allegations as “mischievous and irresponsible.” She insists she is not responsible for appointing heads of constitutional bodies. She also dismisses suggestions that she is anti-Polaki because the Ombudsman has been issuing several reports critical of the government. DPM Majara says she has no business interfering with the work of independent statutory offices.

The allegations have emerged as Adv Polaki fights to keep her job. She has launched an urgent Constitutional Court application seeking to stop Prime Minister Sam Matekane and other state institutions from replacing her when her current four-year term expires on 30 June 2026.

In court papers, Adv Polaki argues that constitutional reforms introduced through the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution Act 2025 automatically extended her tenure during the transition to the new constitutional order and that any attempt to recruit or appoint a new Ombudsman would be unconstitutional.

She wants the court to preserve the status quo and prevent any recruitment process pending final determination of the case.

Sources familiar with the matter allege that Ms Majara is determined to prevent Adv Polaki’s tenure from being extended beyond its scheduled expiry date.

The sources further claim that Ms Majara wants Adv Polaki replaced by her adviser, Adv Mamofota Kale, who previously served as her judicial clerk.

“We have heard that she (Majara) has openly indicated that the government no longer wants to work with Adv Polaki because she is allegedly fighting the government,” a source, speaking on condition of anonymity, told the Lesotho Times.

“That is why her fate appears to have been decided not by law or performance, but by someone’s personal sentiments.”

Another source claimed National Assembly Speaker, Tlohang Sekhamane, had diverted the matter to the executive despite the issue initially falling under Parliament’s consideration.

“From a constitutional point of view, Mr Matekane does not have the power to appoint an Acting Ombudsman because that specific provision is inconsistent with the superior law, namely the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution Act 2025,” the source said.

“That effectively grants the executive parliamentary authority to decide the fate of the Ombudsman — and the executive has already indicated that it no longer wishes to work with her.”

Correspondence seen by the Lesotho Times shows Mr Sekhamane informed Adv Polaki that Parliament, through its Presiding Officers, currently lacks authority to appoint an Ombudsman or extend her tenure.

Another source alleged Mr Sekhamane initially consulted Ms Majara on the matter.

“We heard that Mr Sekhamane approached Justice Majara and asked her about the Ombudsman’s contract. It is unclear why he turned to the executive when extension of the Ombudsman’s tenure is a parliamentary matter.

“It appears he fears confronting the executive because of concerns over his own position should he go against the party line,” the source said.

However, Mr Sekhamane strongly denied the allegations.

“No. It is not true that I sought advice from the DPM. It would seem your ‘reliable sources’ are not so reliable after all.

“My office does not yet have the administrative instruments to extend the tenure of the Ombudsman. I explained this in my letter to her.

“Suffice to say that mona moo keleng hona teng, ke na le boeletsi bohle boo ke bo hlokang tabeng ena; ’me ruri I am trying my best,” he said.

(Loosely translated: “I have all the advice I need on this matter and I am doing my best.”)

Lesotho’s first Ombudsman was Mohale Ntšaba, who served from 1993 to 2002. He was succeeded by Adv Sekara Mafisa, who served two terms between 2002 and 2010. Adv ’Matsoana Fanana KC served from 2010 to 2014 and was not granted a second term due to age considerations.

Adv Leshele Thoahlane KC took office in 2015 before later leaving to head the Directorate on Corruption and Economic Offences (DCEO), while Justice Tšeliso Mokoko served from June 2019 to 2022.

Observers argue it would be unfair for Adv Polaki to be removed at this stage when the Tenth Amendment provides that holders of certain constitutional and statutory offices remain in place during the transitional period.

Another source linked the current tensions to controversy surrounding the withdrawal of the Ombudsman’s security detail last year.

The source alleged Ms Majara believes Adv Polaki informed the Lesotho Times that the security withdrawal had been carried out on her instructions.

The Lesotho Defence Force (LDF) withdrew the Ombudsman’s security shortly after her 11 March report accused the military of gross human rights abuses during operations intended to support police in combating crime.

Sources previously told this publication that Ms Majara ordered the cancellation of the security arrangement after questioning its legality.

“Justice Majara appears to blame Adv Polaki for the leak regarding the withdrawal of her security detail,” the source said.

Correspondence

In a letter dated 16 December 2025, Adv Polaki informed Mr Sekhamane that her initial four-year term would soon conclude.

In a follow-up letter dated 30 March 2026, she expressed interest in serving a second term or obtaining a contract extension.

“This interest is necessitated by the current constitutional landscape, specifically the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution Act 2025, and the imperative to maintain the independence and security of tenure of this high office,” she wrote.

Adv Polaki argued that the Tenth Amendment altered the Ombudsman appointment framework and introduced transitional provisions pending establishment of the new constitutional mechanisms.

She cited Section 163(1) of the amendment — a transitional “grandfather clause” — arguing that it permits continuation in office during the transition.

“Until the Commission completes its work and Parliament enacts the required legislation, there is currently no legal mechanism to appoint a new Ombudsman.

“Allowing the current term to expire without extension would create an unconstitutional legal vacuum and leave the office unable to perform its functions under Section 134(1),” she stated.

In another letter dated 29 April 2026, Adv Polaki formally communicated her intention to continue serving under the transitional provisions.

“As highlighted during our discussion, this provision affords incumbent office holders, including the Ombudsman, a right of election regarding continuation in office under the transitional framework.

“I hereby formally communicate my election and intention to continue serving in the office of Ombudsman.”

However, in a response dated 18 May 2026, Mr Sekhamane stated that Parliament currently lacks authority to appoint an Ombudsman or extend tenure until legislation establishing a transparent and merit-based selection process is enacted.

“Your request can best be dealt with by the Office of the Prime Minister with the justification raised in your letters.

“I hope you will appreciate the sensitivity that your request poses regarding separation of powers,” he wrote.

On 1 June, Prime Minister Sam Matekane wrote to Adv Polaki stating that once a constitutional term expires, an office holder ceases to hold office automatically.

“The effect of Section 134(1) is that the office of Ombudsman is constitutionally subject to a fixed tenure not exceeding four years.

“Where such period ends, cessation of office ordinarily occurs by operation of law.

“Section 125 does not expressly provide for automatic continuation of an incumbent beyond expiry of tenure, nor does it confer the power to extend the period,” he stated.

Adv Polaki disputes this interpretation.

Legal battle

She has now run to the Constitutional Court seeking the proper interpretation of section 163 of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.

According to her court application, section 163 of the Tenth Amendment “grandfathered” existing office holders into the new constitutional order until implementation mechanisms are enacted.

She further argues that Parliament’s failure to establish the constitutionally required implementation authority has created uncertainty and triggered the current dispute.

The Constitutional Court is expected to hear the matter on 29 June 2026.

The respondents include Prime Minister Matekane, the Government of Lesotho, Parliament, His Majesty King Letsie III, Attorney General Advocate Rapelang Motsieloa and the Independent Electoral Commission.

The respondents had not yet filed answering papers at the time of publication.

Majara dismisses allegations

For her part, Ms Majara strongly rejected allegations that she was behind efforts to remove Adv Polaki or that she had influenced correspondence from the Prime Minister’s office regarding the Ombudsman’s tenure.

Responding to claims that she authored or influenced the Prime Minister’s letter rejecting Adv Polaki’s interpretation of the Constitution, Ms Majara said such allegations were unfounded.

“I don’t write the Prime Minister’s letters. I don’t,” she said.

“When people read something and assume it is because of legal language and legal training, they should remember I am not the only legal expert in this country.

“There is the office of the Attorney General in Lesotho and legal officers in all ministries. If people see a legally drafted letter, why should they pin it on me?”

Ms Majara stressed that she only signs correspondence on behalf of the Prime Minister when formally acting in his absence and under his instructions.

“I don’t draft letters for the Prime Minister. I don’t issue the Prime Minister’s letters. I can only write letters when the Prime Minister is not in the country and only on his directive and signing on his behalf, as I have done before,” she said.

She further denied suggestions that she had any influence over appointments to independent constitutional institutions.

“It is not my responsibility to write the Prime Minister’s letters. Lawyers are there. I did not write the letter people claim I wrote.

“I do not appoint heads of independent institutions. Whether the Prime Minister replaces the Ombudsman or not, that will not be my decision.”

Ms Majara also dismissed allegations that she intended to have Adv Polaki replaced by one of her advisers.

“My adviser will remain with me until the day I no longer require her services.

“People say the proof of the pudding is in the eating. We will see whether the appointed person will be my adviser. But I am telling you today that my adviser is not going to be Ombudsman. She is my adviser because I need her in my office.”

Addressing allegations linking her to the withdrawal of the Ombudsman’s security detail last year, Ms Majara said she had no involvement and that she and Adv Polaki had already addressed the issue directly.

“For your information, the Ombudsman came to my office and denied that these issues came from her because I was angry with her.

“How can I engage in her security details? Why would I be fighting with her?”

Ms Majara said allegations against her appeared to stem from controversy surrounding the Ombudsman’s investigation into military operations.

“You remember it was said she was investigating soldiers, so the issue relates to matters concerning the commander and soldiers.

“Why is it pinned on me? Now it resurfaces again. Does it make sense at all? There is not even an iota of truth in this.”

Polaki’s record in office

Adv Polaki was appointed Ombudsman on 1 July 2022 by former Prime Minister, Dr Moeketsi Majoro, on a four-year contract.

During her tenure, she has published several investigative reports exposing alleged maladministration and institutional failures across government.

These include investigations into delays in issuing vital documents, unlawful retention of diplomatic passports and broader administrative issues within the Ministry of Home Affairs.

Her report, Stateless in Lesotho, released on 31 March 2026, examined systemic failures affecting access to identity documentation.

She also published a special follow-up report after re-inspections at Mohlomi Hospital and Maseru Correctional Facility, highlighting what she described as systemic neglect and indifference.

Earlier, she released her Final Own Motion Report: An Investigation into Concerns About the Conduct of Military Operations in Various Communities in Lesotho, examining allegations of abuses during military operations.

The post Majara accused of “pushing” for Ombudsman’s ouster appeared first on Lesotho Times.