Should SADC pre­vail over Le­sotho?

Lesotho Times - - Feedback -

ex­actly what is it that hashatsi wants? Does he want jus­tice or does he use the jus­tice sys­tem to deny jus­tice? he is one of the peo­ple who were re­luc­tant to help the Com­mis­sion to know the truth be­cause in crit­i­cal ques­tions of knowl­edge, he would ei­ther have no com­ment or plead ig­no­rance.

If the mat­ter is that the chair in­sin­u­ated that hashatsi is pre-judged, why would it be a mat­ter for him that all the ev­i­dence found in the RSA be an­nulled? Why would it mat­ter for him that the Com­mis­sion re­ports to the Prime Min­is­ter not SADC?

In terms of Sec­tion 8(3) of the Pub­lic In­quiries Act, the Prime Min­is­ter has the power not to dis­close part of the Com­mis­sion’s re­port if, in his or her judge­ment, it would not be proper for in­ter­nal se­cu­rity, rights or any mat­ter to dis­close. Could this be what hashatsi wants?

In the mul­ti­plic­ity of facts and ideas, spec­u­la­tions and opin­ions, it could not be so dif­fi­cult to see that even if it may not be a col­lec­tive, there are those in govern­ment who stand to ben­e­fit if the whole process is flawed or at least cer­tain aspects of ev­i­dence given does not in­flu­ence the re­port.

On the other hand SADC is up­set by the man­ner in which govern­ment de­fines the Hashatsi case, which they see as sheer de­lay­ing tac­tics and ma­nip­u­la­tion of pro­cesses.

The SADC as well as govern­ment of Le­sotho, ba­si­cally politi­cians at dif­fer­ent lev­els, have dis­re­spected Ba­sotho at var­i­ous stages of han­dling Le­sotho prob­lems and when they lock heads or horns, it would not be proper for any to see ends as de­ter­min­ing the means.

The en­tire spec­trum of so­ci­ety should be ex­posed to ra­tio­nal­i­sa­tion well be­yond the

thresh­old of the truth held by politi­cians. The con­tention here is that peo­ple have some­thing to share and con­trib­ute to their own affairs.

In a free and open discourse Ba­sotho should not al­low politi­cians ei­ther at SADC level or in the Khokanyana-phiri, not even the Op­po­si­tion, to con­clude this mat­ter with­out agree­ment be­ing reached with ev­ery­body con­cerned.

Ba­sotho should rise and act with re­solve that noth­ing be­comes valid un­less it is for the truth and peace.

By pre­vail­ing over the Le­sotho govern­ment, would SADC not be com­pletely dis­abling govern­ment to carry out the rec­om­men­da­tions of the Phumaphi Com­mis­sion? In fact, would it not be a free li­cence for non-com­pli­ance which is not for the ben­e­fit of Ba­sotho?

So SADC should not fall in the trap. If the whole process is de­layed, then it would not only be jus­tice de­layed but jus­tice de­ferred and con­se­quen­tially de­nied.

On the other hand, the govern­ment of Le­sotho should not be al­lowed to re­nege on the ob­jec­tive process. Govern­ment must be re­minded by the peo­ple that it put the Com­mis­sion of In­quiry as a de­ferred an­swer to de­vel­op­ment part­ners who de­manded full ac­count­abil­ity on some rights and gov­er­nance is­sues.

If it is true that no one has shifted gears, can the govern­ment and SADC agree on strate­gies to fast-track the court process so that it is com­pleted?

Prime min­is­ter Pakalitha mo­sisili

Jus­tice mpathi Phumaphi

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Lesotho

© PressReader. All rights reserved.