BCM, Lipholo’s wife challenge High Court ruling
Appeal over fugitive status and jurisdiction
‘MATHATO SEBOKA
MASERU – The Basotho Covenant Movement (BCM) and ‘Mathapelo Lipholo, wife of party leader, Dr Tšepo Lipholo, have filed an appeal against a High Court of Lesotho decision that refused to hear their case regarding a suspended warrant of arrest for Lipholo.
The appeal, lodged with the Court of Appeal, challenges the Constitutional Court’s ruling delivered on April 30 by Chief Justice Sakoane Sakoane, Justice Molefi Makara, and Justice ‘Mabatšoeneng Hlaele.
Appellants argue court erred in denying merits hearing after declaring Lipholo a fugitive from Justice.
The appellants argue that the High Court misdirected itself by declaring Lipholo a “fugitive from justice” while simultaneously declining jurisdiction to hear the merits of the case. They contend that the court’s statement – “it cannot protect Dr Lipholo from arrest as he is a fugitive” – was a final determination on his rights, effectively prejudging the case without a full hearing.
The appellants assert that the court contradicted itself by refusing to adjudicate the matter on merits after already touching on substantive issues (i.e., labelling Lipholo a fugitive). They argue that once the court made such a definitive statement, it should have proceeded to a full hearing rather than dismissing the case.
The appeal claims the High Court’s approach was procedurally unfair, as it denied the applicants an opportunity to present evidence on whether the warrant of arrest was lawful or if Lipholo’s fears of persecution were justified. The appellants insist the court erred in law by not considering whether the state’s actions were politically motivated.
Lipholo, a controversial figure, has been petitioning the UN to reclaim land he alleges South Africa stole from Lesotho, including the Free State Province.
His wife’s court filings allege a conspiracy between Lesotho and South Africa to arrest and possibly “eliminate” him for his activism. The High Court previously dismissed an urgent application by ‘Mathapelo to block her husband’s arrest, citing procedural delays and lack of evidence for the alleged “illegal warrant”.
The appeal raises critical questions about judicial overreach, in whether a court can make conclusive remarks on a case while claiming it lacks jurisdiction? And whether labelling someone a fugitive does not prejudice their rights before a full trial?
A question of political interference also comes to the surface, are courts not avoiding sensitive political cases by hiding behind jurisdictional limits?
The Court of Appeal is expected to rule on whether the High Court’s approach violated procedural fairness and constitutional rights. A decision in favour of the appellants could compel a fresh hearing on the arrest warrant’s validity.
