IEC cat fight: A new episode

Director says Hantši is not a super employee

‘MATHATO SEBOKA and

MOTSAMAI MOKOTJO

MASERU – The Independent Electoral Commission’s (IEC) leadership clashes have escalated again as suspended Public Relations Manager, Tuoe Hantši, challenges the Director of Elections, Advocate Mpaiphele Maqutu, in a new legal battle.

The simmering feud between the two officials intensified this week, with Hantši filing a new case at the Directorate of Dispute Prevention and Resolution (DDPR).

The fresh dispute is rooted in internal work grievances, and threatens to further destabilize the electoral body’s operations. 

This is not the two’s first duel, Hantši was first fired in August 2023 following accusations of ‘gross insubordination’ after he allegedly skipped a meeting called by Maqutu.

The Labour Court initially nullified his dismissal in September 2023, citing procedural irregularities and ordering a fresh disciplinary hearing with legal representation for Hantši.

However, the IEC proceeded with the termination, and prompting Hantši to file contempt of court charges against Maqutu and others. 
On April 15, 2024, the Labour Appeal Court upheld the earlier decision, mandating Hantši’s reinstatement and a restart of disciplinary proceedings. Despite the court order, Hantši remained excluded from his office as of April 18, 2024, with Maqutu disputing the interpretation of the ruling and demanding documentation from Hantši’s lawyer. He was later reinstated.

In a fresh twist, Hantši was on May 8 suspended with immediate effect pending what the IEC called the outcome of an internal investigation. The Commission described the move as a “standard administrative procedure aimed at ensuring the integrity and transparency of the Commission’s internal processes.”

Hantši told this publication at the time that he had been suspended because he had inquired of Maqutu’s whereabouts from a security guard.

In a candid interview with Public Eye this week, Maqutu dismissed Hantši elevated public profile, stating: “He (Hantši) has been given celebrity status… It’s almost like he is treated like a super employee. He is not a prefect; he is like all employees of the Commission.”

This remark underscores Maqutu’s insistence that Hantši’s case is being sensationalized, despite multiple court rulings criticizing the IEC’s handling of his earlier disciplinary process.

However, critics argue that Maqutu’s stance reflects a broader pattern of resistance to judicial oversight, exemplified by his earlier refusal to reinstate Hantši pending appeals.

Hantši’s latest move – a case filed at the DDPR on May 12 – adds fuel to the fire and pertains to workplace grievances, with the DDPR, tasked with resolving labour disputes, now facing pressure to mediate a resolution amid mounting public scrutiny. 

The Hantši-Maqutu saga highlights tensions between institutional authority, judicial accountability, and employee rights. As the DDPR case unfolds, stakeholders – including opposition parties and civil society – are watching closely, wary of the IEC’s ability to conduct impartial elections while embroiled in internal discord. 

Maqutu insists that Hantši is “not a prefect, he’s like other employees.”

He continued that he has gone through papers relating to the DDPR case, and that he is prepared to respond to the allegations contained therein; however, the “slander written in that document sickens me to the core.”

“When you read them, you would think I am a madman! I have spoken to my lawyers about it,” he said.

“He has been saying that he won the case against his previous suspension against the IEC, he came back to duty not because he won anything. He is back here because there were people who pleaded his cause…people who pleaded with me to allow him to return to work,” Advocate Maqutu continued.

He also indicated that one of the IEC Commissioners warned him (Maqutu) about Hantši’s behaviour, but “I stated that I would work with the PRO. I said to him ‘Ntate Tuoe are you listening? I am putting my neck on the block for you here.’”

“He pleaded, indicating that he had learnt his lesson and that he will behave like any other employee and stop being a prefect who undermines protocol,” Maqutu told this publication.

Coming to the crux of what happened last week, Maqutu said he established via security deployed at the IEC offices that Hantši had been monitoring his whereabouts.

“I found out that I am always under surveillance, and learned that he has been doing the same while we were still at our previous office at the MGC Park.  I was even shown the communications which happened via WhatsApp between the guards and him,” he said.

Maqutu further said he also discovered that Hantši went as far asking about the security detail which was provided to him by the police.  

“We are talking about someone who has a past here, he has a matter in the courts of law accused of pointing a gun at a colleague. This is the calibre of person I am dealing with,” he illustrated, adding that “I am not talking about an ordinary citizen.”

Maqutu revealed that he has also, on Wednesday, opened a case at the Maseru Central Charge Office against Hantši for impersonating a police officer.

This relates to Hantši declaring in some media interviews that he is a police officer, according to Maqutu, who continued that “I reported a case…he even said the security I have been afforded account to him because he is still a policeman.”

“The police were amazed since Hantši can only be a cop when he is on active service, those policemen who retired can also still be described as such since they went home with their ranks intact,” Maqutu said, adding that Hantši has resigned from the police service.  

Commissioner of Police (Compol), Advocate Borotho Matsoso, told this publication that once one has resigned from the police service, they are not allowed to refer or conduct themselves as police officers.

“They are ordinary citizens,” Compol Matsoso said.  

“However, this doesn’t take away the fact that such persons have been moulded within the disciplined forces…he or she is a trained police officer,” Matsoso said.

The Compol laughed off Maqutu’s case of impersonation against Hantši, saying “We have a lot of issues to deal with really. If he (Maqutu) had indicated that Hantši was using his previous position as a police officer to commit a crime or extort money from the public, then there would be a case to answer, not with this one,” Advocate Matsoso noted.

Hantši’s contention before the DDPR, claims, among other things, that he has been made a scapegoat for an array of mishaps at the Commission and that Maqutu has vowed to make his life a living hell. 

Hantši alleges that Maqutu told him point blank that he would make him and his family suffer, and that by the time the courts of law intervene, his family would have suffered.

To this end, Hantši has filed a case of unfair labour practice and demands that the DDPR make an order or an award declaring his suspension null and void in that he is under constant and intentional harassment from the IEC director.

He has indicated Maqutu has on many occasions “committed misconduct against me,” accusing the director of intimidation, threats, coercion and bullying – and habitual general harassment.

“Sometime in November 2022, the director told me that he has fought many battles and has money, and that as a result, I should not question what he does or seek any clarification on anything he says.

He also stated to me that he really does not care, as his former employer, the Lesotho Electricity Company, had compensated him with a lot of money and that even if he were to leave the IEC, he already has a lot of money,” Hantši narrates his ordeal to the DDPR.

“He would completely ignore me and my work/duties a public relations manager would be done by a temporary employee.”

After laying bare the threats of the IEC director to make him suffer, Hantši says: “true to these sayings, I did suffer by being terminated from my position sometime in August 2023 until the Courts intervened later in April 2024.”

On his long list of accusations, he says on March 21, 2025, the director summoned him whilst he was on leave to ask him questions on allegations of him (Hantši) having spread information to the effect that the director (Maqutu) has “some kind of interest in the building or offices premises that IEC is presently occupying.”

Hantši claims that on April 3, the director came to his office to ask him on the rumours that he was the one responsible for reporting him (Maqutu) to the Lesotho Mounted Police Service on a case involving irregular procurement procedures.

“The rumours that he acquired IEC paper-bags contrary to the procurement procedures and laws, he told me on my face that if the hearsay would turn out to be true, he was going to dismiss me.

At this time, I was not even aware that there is such a matter before the police,” Hantši says in his request for assistance from the DDPR.

“He then later told me that he found out that it was another employee from the procurement department who had reported the matter to the LMPS. He instructed me to investigate the said employee and report to him about the said employee so that he could deal decisively with him and I told him that it is unlawful and illegal for me to disclose an informant or whistle-blower,” Hantši further says.

Hantši was later called for a meeting on May 06, 2025, where the Director, Human Resources Manager, Corporate Services Manager, Director- Legal Services and Operations Inspector were present.

“In that abrupt meeting that did not even have an agenda, I was accused before all these officers with having facilitated or assisted a certain employee to report a matter of unlawful procurement activities to LMPS after the said employee had reported in to the DCEO unsuccessfully.

Demonstrating visible anger in front of everyone, he accused and blamed me that his secretary had been held ransom by LMPS for two and half days over this incident and I am responsible for that and that I was colluding with the procurement officer who had whistle-blower on procurement irregularity matter,” Hantši narrates.

It is at that meeting that Maqutu told Hantši that he had put his (Maqutu’s) life in danger.

Hantši says he was alleged to have asked a certain security officer on the whereabouts of the director, thereby threating his life.

“In that I asked a security officer whether he has arrived at work or has left and whether his bodyguard was there. He stated before the said officers that he was going to determine whether I had threatened his life and that if he finds it fit then he I should already know that he is going to charge me and dismiss me,” Hantši’s narration continues.

He further indicates that on May 8, the director penned a suspension letter over “some supposed investigations over his claimed personal safety.”

Hantši feels that his dismissal has caused him and his family unnecessary suffering, and it has also led to him suffering psychological harm.

“It is due to one or more (several) of the above-cited incidents that I claim unfair labour practice committed by the employer against me as a worker, and I have not been afforded any protection from these acts of threats to dismiss me, threats of intimidation to make me and my family suffer as a result of dismissal, coercion to investigate other employees, bullying and harassment made to be and also in front of colleagues, and acts of tyranny. This has resulted in me suffering psychological harm as well.”