Storm brews over revised police retirement regualtions
RANTAU TLALI MAKHETHA
MASERU- After the fallout from the Lesotho Defence Force (Amendment) Regulations, 2025, the government is at it again. This time, the Lesotho Mounted Police Service (LMPS) has a similar amendment that aims to increase the age of retirement for officers with allegations that the purpoted ammendments were gazetted on April 11.
Police minister Lebona Lephema is said to have gazetted The Lesotho Mounted Police Service (Administration) (Amendment) Regulations, 2025, particularly section 2(a)-amend the retirement age which would allow aged police officers to retire at 60 years.
“The Commissioner may have regard to the conditions of the Police Service and, after consultation with the Police Authority, retire a member of the Police Service before or after the member concerned attains the age of 60 years,” section 2(b) reads.
Meanwhile the Lesotho Police Staff Association (LEPOSA) has expressed ignorance about the gazette, saying they are waiting for an official legal instrument.
LEPOSA Secretary General Makatleho Mphetho this week said she went to Commissioner of Police (Compol) Borotho Matsoso’s office to make inquiries about the law.
“I wanted to verify from the Compol whether the document is authentic or not, unfortunately I was not able to meet him,” Mphetho disclosed.
This paper spoke to two senior police officers from the rank of Senior Inspector and Superintendent who confirmed the veracity of the regulations.
Police spokesperson, Senior Superintendent Mpiti Mopeli, referred this paper to minister Lephema saying that “if they were gazetted by the minister; you should ask him.”
After repeated calls and WhatsApp messages, there was no response from Lephema.
Questions the minister did not answer: 1) What was the rationale behind increasing the age of retirement as per Lesotho Mounted Police Service (Administration) (Amendment), 2025?; 2) Against such regulations, what is going to happen in the recruitment of new police officers?; 3) Critics argue that the regulations contravene section 18 of the Constitution, which addresses the issue of protection from discrimination. Were you aware of the constitutional mandate? and 4) Did you consult the Lesotho Police Staff Association (Leposa) before gazetting the regulations?
“This is a serious issue with the government failing to address youth unemployment; what is the rationale for increasing the age of retirement?
“What are these people afraid of when they are supposed to head home to create space for young people?” a source quizzed.
Another source privy to the workings accused Lebona of brewing a war within the police ranks charging that the police promotion policy is outdated and favours those close to the top brass.
“I know colleagues who have retired without being promoted simply because they were not aligned to ruling political parties,” he said, adding that it’s crucial to depoliticize the police.
“We come from a painful past as an institution where we fought with management; there’s a need to avoid falling into the same trap again with this piece of legislation, which lacks logic,” the source said.
The paper was told by an independent lawyer, who spoke of condition of anonymity for fear reprisal that, if the regulations were challenged in court, government would be defeated.
“The regulations go against section 18 of the Constitution, which addresses discrimination… I don’t see the logic behind the law because the Constitutional Court would declare the clause on age as bias,” the lawyer said.
This comes hot on the heels of the controversial Lesotho Defence Force (Amendment) Bill, 2025, which was meant to do the same but was withdrawn after heavy criticism for parliamentarian and civil society at large last week.
Human rights advocacy group, The Advocates for the Supremacy of the Constitution, popularly known as Section 2, blasted LDF Amendment Regulations for violating section 18, which addresses protection from discrimination.
“The government touts this bill as a step toward professionalism and global alignment, yet its provisions reek of arbitrary and unjust discrimination that disproportionately punishes lower-ranked soldiers. Consider the following: Junior soldiers face forced retirement as early as 48 years, while officers enjoy contract extensions up to 62 years, a glaring disparity with no rational basis.
“Special exemptions coddle medical officers, lawyers, and chaplains, permitting service until 60 years, while other personnel are cast aside earlier without operational justification. The claim that non-commissioned officers require maturity in experience is a hollow excuse, selectively applied to extend service for elites while denying the same to lower ranks.
“This institutionalized bias, which disproportionately burdens soldiers often hailing from marginalized communities, constitutes discrimination devoid of military necessity, a direct assault on Section 18,” the rights body wrote in a press statement on April 1 this year.
