DPP stands firm – Lesotho Times

480

…insists that Deputy Prime Minister Majara instructed her to drop charges against coalition ally

…says the attempt to oust her is a ploy to keep the current coalition government afloat

Morosi Zian

The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Hlalefang Motinyane stood by his view.

She insisted the government wanted to remove her from her key position because she had refused an illegal directive from Deputy Prime Minister Nthomeng Majara to drop treason and murder charges against her political ally.

Mr Mateken’s government, which took office in October 2022, has launched a move to remove DPP Motinyane, accusing her of gross incompetence. The government has sent her a letter to show cause, explaining why an impeachment tribunal should not be appointed to investigate her fitness to continue in office.

However, DPP Motinyane has rejected the move and has filed an application with the Constitutional Court seeking an order restraining her removal from office.

She claimed she was being persecuted for defending the independence of her office after she refused to drop treason and murder charges against Health Minister and Movement for Economic Change leader Selibe Mochoboroane and Lesotho Congress for Democracy (LCD) leader Mothetjoa Metsing, both political allies of Matt Caine.

Last month, in response to DPP Motinyane’s original affidavit, Attorney General Rapelang Motsieloa KC cited several reasons why the government was conspiring to sack DPP Motinyane.

He accused DPP Motinyane of being incompetent, a fact that had existed before she was promoted to her current position.

However, in her defence filed on Monday, DPP Motinyane insisted the plot to oust her had nothing to do with her performance. Rather, it was simply because she refused to sack Mr Metsing and Mr Mochoboroane over the high-profile murder and treason trials that shook the government to its core.

She insisted that Deputy Prime Minister Majara instructed her to drop all charges against the two men, but the two fell out when she refused to comply.

Attorney General Motsyeloa has insisted that Deputy Prime Minister Majara did not instruct Deputy Attorney General Motinyane to fire the two men, but only “suggested” to do so in a cordial conversation. However, this appears to be a serious violation of the law.

“I intend not to deal with the allegations of misconduct or incapacity raised by the witness (AG Motsieloa KC), not because I accept them to be true, but because, in essence, they are irrelevant to the present application,” DPP Motinyane said.

“There was no warm, friendly and polite exchange on that day in September 2023. I was called to meet with Minister Majara, who is the political head of the Ministry of Justice, Law and Human Rights. I attended the meeting in my capacity as DPP… to discuss issues surrounding criminal trials, particularly cases related to the 2014 events (involving the military and other political actors, including Mr Messing and Minister Mojoboroone).

“The Minister then directed me to drop the charges against Mr Metsing and Minister Mochoboroane. In her own words, Minister Majara said to me ‘theFatherMessing andFatherMochoboroane, you must withdraw the charges against them and then I request you to call them and speak to them about this matter….

“I reiterate that Deputy Prime Minister Majara did give me an unconscionable and patently unlawful instruction to withdraw my allegations against Mr Messing and Minister Mojoboroone. Whether this instruction was given in a friendly meeting or in a conference between a political leader and her subordinates is immaterial. What matters is that Deputy Prime Minister Majara instructed me to do or not do a particular act.

“In fact, it is in the interest of the coalition government to drop the charges, as the survival and continuation of a coalition government depends on common interests, mutual consultation and joint decision-making. The witness is fully aware that the collapse of successive coalition governments in Lesotho from 2012 to 2020 was due to the lack of the above normative principles.

“The charges, continuation or withdrawal of charges against military and political actors (in relation to the 2014 incident) have been a focus of pre-election agitation by political parties and a bone of contention between coalition partners after the 2015, 2017, 2020 and 2022 elections. This is a reality and a common feature of coalition politics in Lesotho,” said DPP Motinyane.

“While Deputy Prime Minister Majara has no constitutional authority to issue such directives, which in themselves demonstrate unconscionable and patently illegal conduct, it is clear that she wants the charges against the leaders of the various coalition parties (MPs Messing and Mojoborone) to be dropped. Otherwise, she should not have issued such unconscionable and patently illegal directives in the first place.

“From a political perspective and in the interests of the coalition government and its partners, it is better for the continuation and stability of the coalition government and Mr. Machin and Minister Mojoborona to discontinue the criminal charges than to proceed with them.”

In her statement of defence, Motsyeloa claimed that she agreed to transfer to a new position as Special Advisor to the Attorney General (SAAG) with the same benefits and salary as Motinyane after he mentioned that the position caused her stress and anxiety. However, Motinyane insisted that she never agreed to any such offer.

In his response, Deputy Public Prosecutor Motinyani said: “The decision to redeploy was taken when it became apparent that I had not carried out the instructions of Deputy Prime Minister Majara. I have never felt stress or anxiety in connection with my work in the Deputy Public Prosecutor’s Office and have never expressed such alleged stress or anxiety to witnesses.

“Assuming that I had been stressed and anxious for the reasons cited by the witness and I had expressed the same to him, as Attorney General, he must have known that my only option (barring impeachment) was to voluntarily resign as DPP for the same reasons he mentioned, rather than reassign me. The so-called sympathy is untrue and baseless. It is impossible for the Attorney General to show sympathy by reassigning me, which is contrary to Sections 99 and 141 of the Constitution.”

As the case is not an urgent application, no hearing date has been set. Nevertheless, the DPP requested in her application that all proceedings be stayed pending the conclusion of the merits of her case.