Lesotho: LHDA Fights Back

THE Lesotho Highlands Water Commission (LHWC) is challenging the High Court's authority to hear a case filed by chairperson of the Lesotho Highlands Development Authority (LHDA) board, Lehlomela Stephen Phakisi, who is fighting to keep his position.

The LHWC and LHDA lawyer, Attorney Qhalehang Letsika, argued before Chief Justice Sakoane Sakoane yesterday that the High Court lacks jurisdiction over the case.

According to Mr Letsika, both the 1995 Legal Notice and the LHDA Act of 2000 (as amended) shield the Commission from legal action.

"The legislature deliberately excluded the Commission from litigation before this Honourable Court," he argued, insisting that the court should dismiss Mr Phakisi's application with costs.

The legal dispute stems from a move by the LHWC to oust Mr Phakisi earlier this year, accusing him of violating conflict of interest rules.

Mr Phakisi was accused of failing to disclose his ties to Mafube Engineering Laboratory and Mafube Property Development when he joined the LHDA board in 2018. He later became board chair in 2023. On 4 February 2025, the LHWC formally asked him to explain his involvement with the two companies. Unconvinced by his response, the Commission deemed him conflicted and demanded his resignation.

Mr Phakisi then approached the High Court, seeking an order to stop the LHWC from removing him. He also wants the court to declare the Commission's decision invalid and unconstitutional, insisting he disclosed all necessary information before assuming his role.

Mr Letsika, however, argued the matter belongs in the Labour Court, not the High Court.

"This is a labour dispute. He applied for the job, was appointed by the Commission, and now the Commission wants to remove him, just like an employer would an employee. Therefore, any grievances should have been brought before the Labour Court under the Labour Act."

He emphasised that the Labour Court has jurisdiction to review administrative decisions like this one, particularly under Section 50(2)(j) of the Labour Act.

"Mr Phakisi should not have approached this court. There is a competent forum equipped to handle labour disputes, and this is not it."

But Mr Phakisi's lawyer, Advocate Sello Tšabeha, strongly disagreed. He argued that the immunity claimed by the Commission doesn't apply here.

Close

Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters

Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox

Top HeadlinesLegal AffairsGovernanceWater

Submit

By submitting above, you agree to our privacy policy.

"We must begin with the Constitution as the supreme law. It guarantees everyone the right to have disputes heard fairly in court. The immunity they are referring to is based on a UN convention adopted by Lesotho in 1969. Even that convention allows for disputes of a private legal nature to be settled through appropriate channels," Adv Tšabeha argued.

He stressed that Mr Phakisi's case falls under that category, not something the immunity clauses were intended to block.

Adv Tšabeha also rejected the notion that Mr Phakisi is an employee.

"He is a non-executive board chairperson. Board members like him are appointed for their expertise, not as salaried employees. They receive fees and allowances, not monthly pay. They are not under the direct supervision of the LHDA."

He also argued that while the LHWC may have appointed Mr Phakisi, it lacked authority to remove him over a conflict of interest issue.

"The LHDA has a Conflict of Interest Committee specifically established to handle such matters. That committee was never involved in Mr Phakisi's case. So, even if there was a conflict, the proper process was not followed.

"They used the wrong body to act against him. Due process, as laid out in the LHDA's own policies, was not followed."

After hearing both sides, Justice Sakoane reserved judgment to an undisclosed date.

Read the original article on Lesotho Times.