By Thoboloko Ntšonyane
MASERU- A constitutional case has been filed by the Socialist Revolutionaries (SR) leader Advocate Teboho Mojapela accusing the parliament of failing to fulfil its constitutional obligation to enact a law regulating conflict of interest, per Section 59(1)(e) of the Constitution.
The three applicants, Advocate Mojapela, also the Motete No.3 member of Parliament (MP), alongside the Basotho Covenant Movement (BCM) and the Popular Front for Democracy (PFD) argue that this inaction perpetuates corruption and undermines governance ethics.
The case arises from Parliament’s rejection of the “Conflict of Interest Bill, 2024.” The applicants claim this rejection defies constitutional dictates requiring legislation to disqualify public officials, including ministers and Members of Parliament (MPs), from engaging in government contracts. For 30 years, successive parliaments have failed to enact such legislation, rendering the government in mora debitoris (delayed debt).
The respondents the Speaker of the National Assembly, the Leader of the House, the Prime Minister, Minister of Law and Constitutional Affairs and the Attorney General being the first to fifth respondents respectively.
In their petition, the applicants demand the court issue the following orders: A declaration that the rejection of the bill was unconstitutional, irrational, and invalid; a directive compelling Parliament to enact the legislation within one year and an interim interdict preventing government officials, ministers, and MPs from entering public contracts until the legislation is passed.
“Parliament’s negative conduct of failing to promulgate legislation regulating conflict of interest… is a defiance and violation of its oath of office, ethical, moral, and fiduciary duties embedded in Section 59 of the Constitution,” reads the petitioners application.
On 1 November 2024, Parliament debated Motion No. 132, moved by MP Dr Tšepo Lipholo, proposing the introduction of the bill. Despite arguments from MPs such as Advocate Lekhetho Rakuoane, who cited ethical obligations and the adverse impact of unchecked conflicts of interest, the motion was defeated.
Out of 34 MPs, 19 voted against, 13 supported, and two abstained.
Government ministers opposing the bill reportedly described themselves as “business giants” entitled to trade freely, dismissing constitutional constraints.
Meanwhile, critics argue this attitude promotes inequality, diminishes private sector opportunities, and breaches public trust.
Advocates for the bill highlight the fiduciary duty of government officials to act in the public interest.
They argue that public servants cannot simultaneously represent private interests, as this creates conflicts of interest. Advocate Rakuoane eloquently stated during the debate, “No one can serve two masters… you cannot serve both God and money.”
The case also sheds light on alleged corruption within the government. Prime Minister Ntsokoane Matekane and several ministers face accusations of awarding lucrative contracts to companies in which they hold interests. For instance, Matekane’s company, Matekane Mining Investment Company (MMIC), reportedly secured a multi-billion Maloti contract with Letšeng Diamonds but has since been bought out by the mine.
If successful, the case could set a precedent for holding public officials accountable and ensuring compliance with constitutional mandates.
There are arguments in some quarters that enacting the conflict of interest legislation is crucial for promoting transparency, fair resource distribution, and public trust in government institutions.
As the court will pronounce itself over this matter, the case underscores the tension between entrenched political interests and the constitutional obligation to uphold governance ethics.
It also raises broader questions about the role of the judiciary in safeguarding constitutional principles in a democratic society.