UFC court loss, looming disaster for BAP?
’MATHATO SEBOKA
MASERU – The Constitutional Court verdict in the case of United for Change (UFC) party versus its only National Assembly proportional representation legislator, Mohlominyane Tota, could hit many parties with turncoat agents hard.
This after the apex court passed judgment that any Member of Parliament (MP) should be afforded the singular honour of acting as a free agent in matters that require individual and intelligent assessment on matters of national interest.
The court case was challenging a decision of the Speaker of the National Assembly, Tlohang Sekhamane, for allowing the now infamous UFC MP to go berserk on ‘supporting government’ – a position the party feels is mandatory on its only representative member.
UFC and other parties made a collective decision to align with government and feel the decision taken at party level is binding on its members. The Speaker gave out a ruling on February 19, 2024, that UFC’s Tota, was allowed to sit where he wanted after he (Tota) as the sole member of UFC moved to sit on the side of opposition.
The speaker granted him leave. This left the UFC feeling that they were effectively not represented since Tota in no uncertain terms said he would not support government without conditions. His conditions included his right to support if and when he feels free to do so. He contented that he would do so “As long as the government acted properly in my assessment.”
Tota wrote to the Speaker on February 8, 2024, notifying him of his intention to move from his seat to a seat he said he deemed comfortable. Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) allocated UFC one seat following the General elections of October 7, 2022, with UFC founding leader, ‘Malichaba Lekhoaba, as its only MP.
Later she resigned from the parliament making way for Tota to replace her. The judgment granting Tota leave to act as ‘he pleases’ could hurt attempts by the Basotho Action Party (BAP) to rein in its renegade four who include its erstwhile deputy Motlatsi Maqelepo who no longer support their leader, party and its central committee decisions.
The ruling has potential to affect how the BAP addresses its ‘wound’.
Maqelepo and company have defied the party and its decision to quit the coalition with the governing Revolution for Prosperity – RFP and others going as far as according to the party being ‘instrumental in getting BAP leader, Professor Nqosa Mahao, fired from cabinet.’
Maqelepo is alleged to have had an unauthorised communication with the Prime Minister Ntsokoane Matekane urging action against his own party’s leadership when conflict was brewing in the BAP.
Mahao criticised Maqelepo for taking part in drafting and sending a letter to the prime minister in collaboration with ‘parties hostile to BAP’ to oust him from the energy ministry where he was minister.
Maqelepo was also alleged to have contravened Circular No: 004/2024 which barred him from holding any party meetings which he nonetheless held.
Nqosa then suspended his deputy on December 09.
BAP has sought all means to restraint Maqelepo and co. even threatening their ouster from the August House where they were sent on Proportional Representation for the BAP post 2022 election which gave the party six members.
With the UFS judgment in tow, is the BAP facing the same fade as the UFC?
Senior Political Science lecturer with the National University of Lesotho NUL Professor Motlamelle Kapa said that the judgment made against UFC could become law.
“From that judgment it would mean that it has become law that an MP can choose where to sit in the parliament, be it on the side of opposition or government,” said Kapa.
He went on to show that unless there is an appeal against that judgment then it would mean it has become law.
“It also means that it would be binding on parties facing the same situation unless there is an appeal that can change the whole situation”.
Kapa added that this would mean that MPs can do anything they want at any time that deem necessary.
“It would mean that if MPs are not crossing the floor, they would vote with whichever side they want to vote with,” Kapa concluded.
In an interview with BAP secretary general, Lepolesa Makutoane, said if they face the same fade as UFC, they would deal with it in the way available at the time.
“Although our case is not the same with that of UFS but should we face the same fade, we will cross that bridge when we get there,” said Makutoane.
Quizzed on their options BAP leader, Mahao, said that the facts of their case and that of UFC are not the same, so the finality of their case and that of UFC may not be the same.
“The facts are not the same in these two cases but our lawyers are going to look at our prospects and we will make a decision as to how we are going to go forward,” Mahao said to this paper on Wednesday.
The case of former Basotho National Party (BNP) deputy leader, Joang Molapo, comes to mind. Molapo left the BNP and jumped over to support the interest of another party, although he was still a proportional representation MP who made it to parliament on a BNP ticket.
He was then expelled from the party. Eight months later Molapo dumped the BNP and joined the Alliance of Democrats (AD) then led by founder, Monyane Moleleki.
BNP then tried to recall Molapo from the parliament to no avail. This since no MP has ever been withdrawn after crossing the floor and there being no legal provision for that in law.
Molapo remained in parliament sent by the BNP yet serving the interests of another party to the end of its term. As it happens the world over, this precedence is an enormous peak – many may not surmount.
