Feisty Ombudsman Polaki locked out of office 

…despite court order blocking her removal from office 

…as gvt is accused of defying the judiciary again 

Mohloai Mpesi / Moorosi Tsiane / Ithabeleng Qhasho 

THE government has once again been accused of defying a court order after locking Ombudsman Advocate Tlotliso Polaki out of her office despite a Constitutional Court order barring her removal from her post. 

The Constitutional Court this week issued an interim order restraining Prime Minister Sam Matekane from replacing Adv Polaki pending the final determination of her application seeking an extension of her tenure. 

However, Adv Polaki said she was shocked when she arrived at her offices at the Post Office Building in Maseru yesterday and found the doors forcibly locked. She also revealed that members of the police Special Operations Unit (SOU), who had been assigned as her security detail all along, had been withdrawn. 

“I found the door locked when I arrived. I was accompanied by my SOU bodyguards and directed them to go inside and check, and they found that the doors were locked. They were then summoned to report to their supervisor and did not return to guard me…Therefore I am currently without guards. I am not sure whether they will be back or whether that means their permanent withdrawal. 

“I am currently writing a letter to Ntate (Tlohang) Sekhamane (Speaker of the National Assembly) as the person I report to in terms of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, to inform him of the situation,” she said. 

She declined to comment further, saying the matter was before the courts. 

Govt “unaware” 

Contacted for comment yesterday, Minister of Law and Justice Richard Ramoeletsi, said he was unaware that Adv Polaki’s office had been locked out of her office. 

“I am not aware of these developments, Ntate. You are the first to bring this to my attention. I have not seen any court order dealing with these issues,” Mr Ramoeletsi said. 

The litigation 

A three-judge Constitutional Court bench comprising Chief Justice Sakoane Sakoane, Justices Moroke Mokhesi and ‘Mafelile Ralebese on Monday granted the interim relief sought by Adv Polaki after her lawyer, Advocate Tekane Maqakachane, successfully argued that urgent intervention was necessary to protect her constitutional rights. 

The order means Adv Polaki will remain in office beyond the expiry of her four-year term, which ended on Tuesday, 30 June 2026, until the Constitutional Court determines the substantive dispute in which she is seeking extension of tenure. 

At the heart of the legal battle is whether the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution Act of 2025 automatically extended the tenure of constitutional office bearers who were serving when it was enacted  on 13 August 2025. 

Adv Polaki maintains that the reforms created a transitional arrangement allowing her to continue serving until Parliament establishes an Act of Parliament which operationalises the Tenth Amendment. 

The Tenth Amendment seeks to enhance the powers and authority of constitutional offices by making them more accountable to Parliament than the executive.  The necessary enabling legislation for that to happen is yet to be enacted, Advocate Polaki argues. 

Such legislation will clearly stipulate how constitutional office bearers are appointed and expected to operate as well as the modalities of how they report to Parliament. 

Pending the enactment of such legislation, and the appointment of her successor in line with the new law, Adv Polaki believes she is entitled to remain in office in terms of Section 163(1) of the Tenth Amendment. 

That section enjoins current officer bearers to remain in office during the transitional period until all the relevant administrative and legislative provisions to give effect to the Tenth Amendment have been enacted, she argues. 

She further argues that the “implementing entity” envisaged in the Tenth Amendment to oversee the coming to fruition of its key provisions has not even been established by Parliament, in “violation” of section 156(3B) of the Amendment. 

Addressing the court, Adv Maqakachane argued that Adv Polaki’s  application was urgent because the Prime Minister’s decision threatened to unlawfully terminate his client’s constitutional tenure. 

“The applicant’s constitutional right is being taken away by the Prime Minister’s decision requiring her to vacate office when her contract expires on 30 June, despite section 163 of the Tenth Amendment expressly providing that she continues to hold office while Parliament establishes the Responsible Authority mandated to oversee legislation and administrative measures necessary to implement the constitutional reforms,” Adv Maqakachane argued. 

He further submitted that failing to intervene would expose Adv Polaki to imminent and irreparable harm because the Prime Minister intended replacing her despite section 163(1) of the Tenth Amendment preserving her tenure until Parliament enacts the necessary legislation governing the transition to any new successor. 

Government lawyer, Adv Letuka Molati, opposed the application, insisting there was no urgency warranting immediate court intervention. 

“The nature of the interim orders sought is effectively definitive. Government should be afforded adequate time to prepare comprehensive papers that will properly assist the court. This matter is not urgent. It is a case of self-created urgency. 

“She delayed approaching the court. She should have come before this court immediately after 13 August 2025 (when the Tenth Amendment was enacted) instead of waiting until now despite knowing the government’s position,” Adv Molati submitted. 

Prime Minister Matekane, the Government of Lesotho, the National Assembly, the Senate, His Majesty King Letsie III, Attorney General Advocate Rapelang Motsieloa and the Independent Electoral Commission are cited as the first to seventh respondents respectively. 

The Constitutional Court is expected to hear arguments on the merits of the application on 4 August 2026. 

Constitutional reforms at centre of dispute 

The dispute revolves around section 163 of the Tenth Amendment, which Adv Polaki argues preserved the tenure of constitutional office holders in office at the time of its enactment.   

Section 163(1) provides: “A person who before the coming into operation of this Constitution holds an office established under this Constitution shall continue to hold the office in terms of this Constitution subject to— (a) consistency and conformity with this Constitution; and (b) any amendment or repeal of the legislation applicable to his or her office.” 

Adv Polaki was appointed Ombudsman by His Majesty King Letsie III, on the advice of former Prime Minister Dr Moeketsi Majoro, on 1 July 2022 for a four-year term due to expire on 30 June 2026. 

However, she argues that the constitutional reforms fundamentally altered her legal position by automatically carrying over her tenure into the transition period whereby an act of Parliament would be enacted to give effect to provisions of the Tenth Amendment. 

“I bring this application in my official capacity as the holder of the Office of the Ombudsman, whose tenure has been continued by section 163(1) of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution Act 2025 for the duration of the transition period,” she states in her court papers. 

The legal battle intensified after Prime Minister Matekane informed Adv Polaki in a letter dated 1 June 2026 that her tenure would end automatically on 30 June 2026 and that neither an extension nor reappointment would be granted. 

Before receiving that letter, Adv Polaki says she had already sought guidance from Parliament after realising that legislation necessary to operationalise the Tenth Amendment had not been enacted. 

On 16 December 2025, she wrote to Speaker of the National Assembly, Tlohang Sekhamane, seeking clarity regarding the transition. 

“I did so with the understanding that the Office of the Ombudsman, under the new constitutional order, is accountable to Parliament,” she states. 

Having received no response, she petitioned Parliament’s Portfolio Committee on Law and Public Safety on 15 May 2026. 

“I harboured an apprehension that there may be no intention to facilitate or give effect to the continuation of my tenure as contemplated under section 163 of the Act 2025,” she states. 

The Speaker later advised her that Parliament had no authority to extend her tenure and referred the matter to the Prime Minister. 

Adv Polaki subsequently wrote to Mr Matekane on 27 May 2026, arguing that any attempt to recruit or appoint a new Ombudsman would violate the Constitution. 

“I indicated that initiating the recruitment process or appointment of the incoming Ombudsman would be unconstitutional. I further stated that section 163 read together with section 152A preserves my status in office and that I remain the holder of the Office of the Ombudsman during the transition period,” she says. 

The Prime Minister rejected that interpretation, maintaining that her tenure expired by operation of law on 30 June 2026 in terms of both the Constitution and the Ombudsman Act of 1996. 

Adv Polaki disputes that position, arguing: “The Office of the Ombudsman is not vacant, as I continue to hold it pursuant to section 163(2) of Act 2025. Therefore, the issue of an acting appointment under section 5 of the Ombudsman Act does not arise.” 

Parliament blamed for impasse 

Adv Polaki further contends that Parliament’s failure to establish the “Responsible Authority” required under section 156(3B) of the Tenth Amendment lies at the centre of the constitutional crisis. 

That provision requires Parliament to establish a body (Responsible Authority) responsible for overseeing legislation, administrative arrangements and transitional mechanisms necessary to implement the amended Constitution. 

According to Adv Polaki, Parliament has failed to fulfil that constitutional obligation nearly 10 months after the reforms came into force. 

“Parliament has delayed and/or failed to discharge this constitutional obligation for a period of ten months. This application therefore seeks a structural interdict to ensure compliance with the Constitution,” she argues. 

She insists that several constitutional offices cannot lawfully transition into the new constitutional framework until the required legislation has been enacted. Therefore, current office holders of constitutional offices must remain in office. 

According to her interpretation, section 163 effectively “grandfathered” all existing constitutional office holders such as herself, the Auditor General and army commander, until the transition into the Tenth Amendment is fully implemented through an Act of Parliament. 

She argues that this affects several office bearers, including Auditor General Mathabo Makenete, Government Secretary Teboho ‘Mokela, Chief of Police Adv Borotho Matsoso, Lesotho Defence Force Commander Lieutenant General Mojalefa Letsoela, National Security Service Director-General Itumeleng Letsepe and members of constitutional commissions. 

Accountability summit irony 

The Ombudsman was locked out of her office on the same day the government hosted its accountability summit at the Manthabiseng Convention Centre – an event at which Adv Polaki had been listed as a speaker. 

A source close to the matter described the development as ironic. 

“They went to an accountability summit where they were to gauge whether they are still on the right track in terms of accountable governance, yet they cannot abide by the law. 

“There is a Constitutional Court order directing that she remains in office, and they locked her out. 

“Coincidentally, their summit started on the same day and they had included the Ombudsman on the programme, yet they knew very well they did not want her there. Her work items were locked inside the office and she could not participate in the summit. That is a tard unacceptable…” the source said. 

“This indicates that the government is out of order and is promoting lawlessness. If they do not obey court orders, what signal does that send to ordinary officers in government ministries? 

“The Office of the Ombudsman exists to strengthen democracy and ensure the law is respected. Yet the government defies the law in the form of a court order and the Constitution itself. 

“They are fighting her because she has been doing a sterling job, and they want someone they can control. 

“The Tenth Amendment is very clear. It has buttressed the autonomy of constitutional institutions and requires them to report directly to Parliament. The government wants the Ombudsman to submit her reports to the Ministry of Law and Justice instead. What they have done is contempt of court.” 

Mofomobe weighs in 

Basotho National Party leader, Machesetsa Mofomobe, escalated the matter yesterday, accusing Deputy Prime Minister Nthomeng Majara of orchestrating the move to force Adv Polaki out of office. 

Speaking to the Lesotho Times, Mr Mofomobe alleged that Ms Majara intended to replace Adv Polaki with Mamofota Kale, whom he said previously served as her judicial clerk when she was Chief Justice from 2014 to 2017. 

“There is a woman called Mamofote Kale who used to be Nthomeng Majara’s judicial clerk when she was Chief Justice. Nthomeng left her in the office and, when she became Deputy Prime Minister, took her to work in her office, leaving the judicial clerk position vacant. She is being paid with donor funds. 

“She is the one whom Nthomeng wants to be the Ombudsman by removing Polaki. And so Polaki was right to run to the courts to block such a move, and the courts ruled in her favour,” Mr Mofomobe alleged. 

He further accused Ms Majara of disregarding the Constitutional Court’s ruling. 

“Nthomeng, despite that, defied the court’s decision, removed Polaki, locked her out of the office and even took away her bodyguards. 

“That is criminality. We are being governed by criminals,” Mr Mofomobe said. 

The BNP leader further claimed that the government’s handling of Adv Polaki’s matter mirrored its treatment of other senior public officials. 

“They always defy court orders. They did this with the Director of Public Prosecutions (Hlalefang Motinyane) and with Mathabo Mokoko at Revenue Services Lesotho. That is Nthomeng’s trademark,” he said. 

Ms Majara had in a previous interview with this publication denied the claims as “mischievous and irresponsible”. She insisted she was not responsible for appointing heads of constitutional bodies. She also dismissed suggestions that she was anti-Polaki because the Ombudsman had been issuing several reports critical of the government. DPM Majara said she had no business interfering with the work of independent statutory offices. 

A pattern of defiance? 

The locking out of Adv Polaki’s office is the latest in a string of accusations that the Matekane administration has ignored court rulings involving constitutional office holders. 

In September 2025, the Constitutional Court declared Prime Minister Matekane’s suspension of DPP Motinyane, null and void and ordered her immediate reinstatement. Yet, upon returning to work, Adv Motinyane was reportedly denied access to her office. 

Similarly, the National Security Service was accused of ignoring a Court of Appeal ruling reinstating 77 dismissed intelligence officers, while the Revenue Services Lesotho board was found in contempt of court for dismissing former Commissioner-General, Adv Mathabo Mokoko, despite an interim order protecting her position. 

Those cases have fuelled growing concerns among critics that the government is increasingly unwilling to comply with judicial decisions it does not like, the main contributory attitude to the breakdown of the rule of law in any country.    

The post Feisty Ombudsman Polaki locked out of office  appeared first on Lesotho Times.