The Thibeli retirement conundrum

LINEO MALATALIANA

MASERU – While the much publicized retirement of the Directorate on Corruption and Economic Offences Chief Investigation Officer, Thabiso Thibeli, by incoming head of the anti-graft body has not been much of a surprise, the controversial investigator claims he has no knowledge of the reported stepping down letter.

Thibeli, a former police officer, grabbed the headlines in July 2019 when then newly appointed Director General Mahlomola Manyokole suspended him from duty for 21 months.

It was widely reported at the time that the suspension was on the grounds that Thibeli went against a directive from Manyokole to hand over files for cases he was investigating, firearms as well as inventory of all exhibits in his care.

Manyokole demanded that Thibeli show cause why he should not be suspended for disobeying the instruction to hand over his body of work to the director general.

While Manyokole declined several summons to a meeting to discuss his standing on Thibeli’s suspension with the DCEO directors, a decision was later reached to reinstate him after a lengthy lay off.  

Thibeli’s suspension was alleged to have been fueled by acts of misconduct.  

However, Thibeli claimed that the suspension was a ploy to stop him from investigating high profile case which involved prominent political figures and individuals suspected of impropriety in the procurement of vehicles for government’s fleet services. 

This week, the newly appointed DCEO Director General, Advocate Brigadier Mantšo Sello, has called for Thibeli’s early retirement.

This has emerged in a February 25 letter from the DCEO doing the rounds on social media platforms this week, addressed to the Principal Secretary in the Ministry of Public Service.

The letter seeks Thibeli’s early retirement from active duty.

Public Eye contacted the spokesperson DCEO, ‘Mathlokomelo Sonoko, who confirmed the authenticity of the letter.

Senoko said: “We are not in the position to comment on the contents of the letter as the matter is in the hands of Public Service and between an employer and their employee.”

 In a second attempt to seek clarity on the reasons the investigating officer was being pushed to retire Senoko would not be drawn into discussing the contents of the letter, she pointed out that the “DCEO is a subordinate of Public Service as such the issues of our employment are handled by Public Service. I cannot confirm or deny the existence of the letter.”

Approached for a reaction to the DCEO’s request to the Public Service, Thibeli told this publication that he had no knowledge of the letter.

He indicated that if the letter is said to be addressed to Public Service from the DCEO it had nothing to do with him.

“We can both agree that the said letter is addressed to the DCEO by the Public Service…it has nothing to do with me. The two entities are talking about me and not to me, so I have no knowledge of the letter,” the investigator said.