Defiance by decree
Government accused of illegally ‘retiring’ 77 NSS officers after landmark court victory
MOTSAMAI MOKOTJO
MASERU – In a move described as a brazen bureaucratic rebellion against the rule of law, government stands accused of effectively replacing one illegal dismissal with another – unilaterally “retiring” 77 National Security Service (NSS) officers who had just won a historic, eight-year legal battle in the country’s highest court.
Days after the Court of Appeal annulled their unlawful expulsion in a scathing judgment that condemned “self-help” by state officials, the officers were summoned to the Ministry of Public Service only to be informed they had been retired. The decision, they say, was made without their signatures, without their knowledge and without any legal process mandating retirement.
“We did not sign anything related to us being retired. When one goes home there are certain documents that we had to sign,” a frustrated officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal, told Public Eye this week. “We never retired. We were thrown out. And now they want to dress it up as if we left on our own.”
The revelation has added a deeply troubling dimension to what is already one of the most protracted and legally significant employment disputes in the country’s recent history, raising existential questions about whether the Constitution remains supreme or is merely a collection of words that those in power can ignore at their convenience.
A judicial rebuke ignored
The officers’ ordeal began in late 2016 when they were appointed as Intelligence Officers (I.O 4) at the NSS following advertisements placed by the Ministry of Defence and National Security. Their fate took a drastic turn when a new Director General, Pheello Ralenkoane, took over and almost immediately moved to undo the appointments made by his predecessor, Colonel Tumo Lekhooa.
In August and December 2017, Ralenkoane issued “show cause” letters to the officers, alleging their recruitment was irregular. By early 2018, he sent letters discharging them. No formal enquiry of the kind required by law was ever conducted. The prescribed procedures under Section 11(3) of the National Security Service Act 11 of 1998 were entirely bypassed.
After nearly eight years of litigation, the Court of Appeal delivered a unanimous judgment on November 7,2025. Writing for the bench comprising President Justice Kananelo Mosito and acting judges Petrus Damaseb and Johann van der Westhuizen, Acting Justice Van der Westhuizen was unequivocal – that then-DG Ralenkoane had resorted to “self-help” – a practice firmly prohibited in public law.
The court affirmed that no public official may unilaterally nullify acts of a predecessor without recourse to judicial review, citing established legal precedents such as Oudekraal Estates and Kirkland. By firing the 77 officers instead of seeking a court order to set aside their recruitment, the court found that Ralenkoane engaged in illegal conduct that violated the foundation of the rule of law.
The ‘collateral challenge’ that failed
Crucially, the court also dismantled the government’s fall-back defence – a “collateral challenge” arguing that since the officers were never lawfully appointed, they could not legally be “discharged.”
The judges noted a telling contradiction: the DG himself had admitted in court papers that the officers were “employed” and “earning salaries prior to their discharge.” The court dismissed the collateral challenge outright.
However, the court also noted that reinstatement was no longer viable given the passage of more than seven years, leaving the “implications of the judgment” to the parties.
But for the 77 officers, the victory has turned to ash. Instead of negotiating the implications of the ruling, they were met with a new administrative fiat: retirement.
Government’s split responses
When confronted by Public Eye, government officials offered fractured and conflicting accounts, revealing an administration caught between judicial authority and executive action.
The Minister of Public Service, Mputi Stephen Mputi, claimed ignorance of the specific retirement issue but admitted knowledge of the underlying case.
“I know about the case (involving NSS officials), but I will make enquiries,” Mputi said, distancing his ministry from the operational details. “The implementation is done at NSS.”
However, his Principal Secretary, ‘Makhoabane Ledimo, offered a starker position of detachment. When asked if she was aware of the retirement issue, Ledimo stated flatly: “For us at Public Service, we don’t know.”
This dissonance was echoed in the Prime Minister’s office. An agitated Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office, Limpho Tau, told Public Eye that the NSS was the proper authority to answer questions related to its officers.
“What I know is that NSS HR (Human Resource) will be in the right place to know the details,” Tau said. He further indicated that he was aware of the court’s judgment; however, he claimed, “NSS was engaging with their lawyer (NSS Officers’ lawyer Motiea Teele KC).”
Yet, the officers maintain that no engagement has occurred. Instead, they face a bureaucratic wall of silence and a unilateral declaration of retirement – a status they never applied for and which legally requires their consent and signature.
The political hand: Minister and PM’s role
The Court of Appeal’s judgment had already foreshadowed this defiance. In a startling revelation within the judgment, the court highlighted an affidavit filed by then-Minister of Defence, Sentje Leonard Lebona. The minister had admitted that the decision to discharge the officers was not the DG’s alone but was “sanctioned” by both the minister and the prime minister.
The court found this deeply problematic, noting that Section 11 of the NSS Act vests the discharge power in the Director General alone, with the minister serving only as an appellate authority. The minister cannot lawfully be involved in a decision from which an aggrieved member would eventually appeal to that same minister.
That same executive overreach now appears to be manifesting again, with the Ministry of Public Service implementing a “retirement” that the NSS officers say is a fiction designed to avoid paying back salaries, benefits, or acknowledging the court’s finding that their original dismissal was a nullity.
Watchdogs warn of Constitutional unravelling
The perceived defiance has drawn the ire of constitutional watchdogs. SECTION 2, the Advocates for the Supremacy of the Constitution, issued a hard-hitting statement directly condemning current NSS Director General, Itumeleng Letsepe, for his “flagrant refusal” to comply with the binding Court of Appeal judgment.
The organization noted that it had first gone public with its condemnation of Letsepe in March 2026 – months before the retirement scheme emerged – and that the response from the NSS chief had been “complete and deafening silence.”
“The ongoing defiance by the Director General of the NSS, Itumeleng Letsepe, in refusing to comply with a binding judgment of the Court of Appeal, and the total silence that has followed, represents an open challenge to the authority of the judiciary and the Constitution itself,” the statement read.
SECTION 2 warned that the NSS has become part of a pattern in which “law enforcement agencies have become a law unto themselves.” Calling for decisive consequences, the organization demanded the “immediate enforcement of the Court of Appeal judgment… including his removal from office for flagrant and sustained defiance of a binding court order.”
“This silence signals to those in positions of power that there are no consequences for overreach, defiance, or abuse,” SECTION 2 said. “It tells public officials that constitutional obligations are optional, and that the institutions meant to check them will not act. This is how constitutional democracies begin to unravel.”
‘Security’ cannot trump the law
The Court of Appeal itself had anticipated the government’s instinct to hide behind national security. In its judgment, the court warned that “security” cannot be used as a code word to override the rule of law, noting that using “security” to trump legally prescribed procedures is a danger to fundamental human rights.
The High Court had previously over-emphasized the security aspect, but the Court of Appeal was clear: even in sensitive departments, legally prescribed processes are not simply wiped out by allegations of a security risk. The court noted that the DG’s claim of an “intelligence report” proving the officers were security risks was merely an opinion, not a fact, and could not justify bypassing the law.
Despite this clear instruction, the warning appears to have gone unheeded. By declaring the 77 officers “retired” without their consent, process, or the required documentation, the government has effectively replaced one unlawful dismissal with another.
A struggle for the soul of the state
For the 77 officers, the exhaustion is palpable. They fought a case that wound through multiple courts for nearly eight years. The country’s highest court vindicated them fully and unambiguously. And yet, they stand here, being told by a government ministry that they “retired” – without paperwork, without process and without their consent.
The question that now hangs over the country is a simple one – if a judgment of the highest court in the land can be defied with impunity, or bypassed through bureaucratic “retirement” schemes, what exactly does the rule of law mean in Lesotho?
The 77 officers are no longer just fighting for their benefits. They have become the face of a struggle to determine whether the constitution is truly supreme or if it is merely a collection of words that those in power can ignore at their convenience.
As one officer put it, “We are tired. But we cannot accept this. If we do, no one is safe.”
