LeBA’s guard up fails

Boxing body slammed for forcing female athlete into co-habitation    

NTHAKO MAJORO

MASERU – A serious breach of athlete safeguarding protocols has been exposed after it emerged that a female Lesotho boxer was forced to share a house alone with her male coach during a two‑week Commonwealth Games training camp in the Eastern Cape.

The highly questionable arrangement, green‑lighted by officials of the Lesotho Boxing Association (LeBA), has triggered widespread condemnation and renewed painful questions about the protection of female athletes in a country where sports leaders have repeatedly been accused of sexual exploitation.

Whistle-blowers told the Public Eye that Rapelang Maselela, a Commonwealth Games scholarship boxer believed to be in her 20s, was placed in an unsupervised rented house with coach Thabiso Nketu (46) in a township near East London.

The training camp was meant to prepare six Lesotho boxers for the Glasgow Commonwealth Games (July 23 – August 2), but insiders say the accommodation decision was a “ticking time bomb” that ignored every basic safeguard.

“One must wonder how this was allowed to happen, especially when the Lesotho National Olympic Committee (LNOC) conducts safeguarding courses for us,” a source who witnessed the situation told this newspaper.

The source added that Nketu appeared surprised by the co‑habitation arrangement and was advised to report the matter to LNOC upon return – a step he has not taken.

Lesotho is not new to such scandals. In the past few years alone, multiple sports officials have faced allegations of sexual abuse of female athletes, painting a grim picture of a sporting culture that continues to place vulnerable young women in harm’s way.

A pattern of betrayal

In one of the most disturbing cases, former boxing champion and retired LeBA president, Moses Kopo, was charged in 2024 with sexually assaulting a 31‑year‑old woman by undressing her without consent and exposing himself. Kopo, who won a silver medal for Lesotho at the 2006 Commonwealth Games, appeared before the Maseru Magistrate Court facing a charge of unlawful and forcible sexual assault.

That case sent shockwaves through the boxing community and showed that even those at the very top of the sport are not immune from predatory behaviour.

Even more harrowing is the ongoing case of Tlokotsi Ndlovu, founder and coach of the Masianokeng Sports Academy, who is facing a rape charge after allegedly assaulting a 17‑year‑old female trainee. The girl went to the coach’s house during the day to pick up footballs; instead, she was allegedly raped by the man who was supposed to protect her.

The Lesotho Coaches Association has suspended Ndlovu pending the outcome of the criminal case.

The football world has not been spared either.

In 2021, rumours of sexual abuse of under‑17 female players in a national training camp led to suspicion that the Lesotho Football Association (LeFA) deliberately withdrew the team from the AUSC Games to avoid scrutiny. While LeFA denied the allegation, the incident highlighted a wider, systemic failure to protect young female athletes.

Against this grim backdrop, the Eastern Cape co‑habitation arrangement appears not as an isolated error, but as the latest manifestation of a culture that routinely endangers female athletes.

The camp that should never have happened

The camp in Eastern Cape was intended to provide world‑class training for Lesotho’s Commonwealth Games hopefuls. Instead, it became an object lesson in how not to run a sports camp.

According to the whistle-blower, Maselela was housed alone with her male coach, Nketu, for two full weeks. No chaperone, no separate accommodation, no female staff member – none of the basic protections that any modern sports federation would consider mandatory.

“If it were your child, would you allow such a situation – that your child be left to stay with a male boxer, and worse still, in a township residence like that?” the source asked.

The source also questioned the financial propriety of the arrangement: “How much was paid for rent and whether the receipt has been submitted to LNOC. Furthermore, what exactly was the situation with that house, and what was the original purpose of renting it.”

The location itself – a rented house in a township – raised further eyebrows. While some defend the choice as being near a gym that has produced world champions, critics say the absence of any independent oversight rendered the arrangement reckless.

The experienced boxing coach, Nketu, has strongly denied the allegations of misconduct surrounding training camp in the Eastern Cape, describing the claims as baseless and possibly driven by hidden agendas.

Speaking to Public Eye, Nketu said he was fully aware of the allegations and suspicions that have been circulating.

“This is not the first time that a boxing camp for female boxers is held,” he said, recalling a similar camp in 2014 preparing for games in Scotland, where he also served as a coach.

He further cited other instances where he worked alongside female athletes, including a team that travelled to Botswana for the Zone IV games, as well as a training camp in Mozambique in February last year.

“I was still part of those teams’ training camps,” he noted.

Addressing the specific arrangements during the Eastern Cape camp, Nketu explained that indeed there was only one female boxer present.

“I slept in my room and the female boxer slept in her own, while we shared only the living room because our meals were prepared by those people who had accommodated us,” he said.

“I have given you the scenario of our living arrangement there, and that is all I can say. If you have spoken to my seniors in the association I strongly believe there is not much that I can say, as my continued explanation on the matter might even blur the truth of what our situation was.”

Nketu emphasised his professional track record, stating: “I have been with female boxers in previous numerous camps. I am a mature man, I am not a child and I am not a small boy. I know how female athletes are handled professionally.”

He expressed disappointment that the claims had entered the public domain without anyone approaching him directly.

“It’s just sad that all these claims are doing the rounds in the public space. Maybe the people who are fuelling these claims have their own agenda, and it’s sad that they did not come to me to speak face to face to get the truth behind what they may suspect.”

While Nketu said he has an idea of who might be spreading the allegations, he insisted he was not troubled by them.

“Nothing untoward happened in the Eastern Cape camp that could raise any suspicion,” he concluded.

LeBA’s defiance: A blatant disregard for rules

When confronted with the allegations, LeBA president, Koloba Sehloho, did not express concern for Maselela’s welfare. Instead, he accused “jealous” individuals of trying to tarnish the association’s reputation.

Sehloho claimed that LNOC’s safeguarding pilot officer was “fully aware” of the accommodation arrangements and that, therefore, no rules were breached.

National boxing head coach, Meshack Letsoepa, went further, dismissing the allegations as “unfortunate” and driven by “personal agendas rather than genuine concern for the growth and development of boxing.”

He argued that the township location was “widely recognised within the boxing community” and that the coach was chosen for his “technical knowledge, leadership qualities, discipline, and professional contact around athletes, particularly female boxers.”

Letsoepa also claimed that the camp was under the guidance of a “highly qualified 3‑star R&J coach and an AIBA instructor” who was “fully aware of safeguarding policies and standards.”

But these defensive statements ignore a fundamental point: none of the LeBA officials has explained why a female athlete and her male coach were forced to share private accommodation without any independent chaperone or separate facilities. The presence of a qualified coach does not negate the inherent risk of placing a young woman and a man alone in a rented house for two weeks – a risk that every international safeguarding standard explicitly warns against.

What the rules actually say?

Both the LNOC and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) have clear, binding policies that LeBA appears to have ignored.

LNOC Safeguarding Policy

In 2025, the LNOC placed its comprehensive Safeguarding Policy under final review, aiming to strengthen our commitment to creating a safe and supportive environment for all athletes and stakeholders and establish clear guidelines for preventing misconduct. In January 2026, the LNOC convened a Safeguarding Policy Induction Session for Presidents, Secretaries General, and Safeguarding Focal Persons from 30 national sports federations.

Key areas of focus included policy application, reporting mechanisms, and all related safeguarding measures designed to protect athletes and all members of the sporting entourage.

LeBA was among those 30 federations. Its officials were, therefore, fully aware – or should have been – that placing a female athlete alone in a house with her male coach is a textbook violation of basic safeguarding protocols.

LNOC Public Relations Officer, Fetang Selialia, confirmed that his office had issued “minimum travel standards” to all federations as a framework for safeguarding before any overseas trip.

“An anonymous source reported an issue to my office, and I have to say that the safeguarding office has provided every federation with a written set of minimum travel standards before,” Selialia said.

He acknowledged that “this was not the first time they travelled under these circumstances, but that doesn’t mean it’s acceptable that something like this happened.”

However, Selialia then made a troubling admission – because there is no proofof sexual abuse, “no accusations can be made against LeBA’s leadership regarding this matter.”

This comment reveals a dangerous loophole in the current system – that a safeguarding breach is only considered serious if actual abuse has already occurred.

By that logic, the policy becomes reactive, not preventive, and athletes remain unprotected until after they have been harmed.

IOC Safeguarding Framework

The IOC has long placed athlete protection at the heart of the Olympic Movement. Since 2004, the IOC has been committed to developing programmes and initiatives to ensure that every athlete can train and compete in a safe sporting environment – one that is fair, equitable and free from all forms of harassment and abuse.

In 2024, the IOC released its third consensus statement on interpersonal violence and safeguarding in sport, synthesising evidence from 15 international experts.

The statement concludes that “sport settings that emphasise mutual care, are athlete centred, promote healthy relationships, embed trauma and violence‑informed care principles, integrate diverse perspectives and measure IV prevention and response effectiveness will exemplify safe sport.”

The IOC has also established a Games‑time Safeguarding Framework specifically designed to protect athletes during competitions and training camps. That framework is supported by Article 1.4 of the IOC Code of Ethics, which states that all forms of harassment and abuse – “be it physical, mental, professional or sexual” – are prohibited.

Furthermore, the Code explicitly requires Olympic parties to “guarantee the athletes conditions of safety, well‑being and medical care favourable to their physical and mental equilibrium.”

IOC Code of Ethics: Direct provisions

The IOC Code of Ethics contains several provisions that LeBA’s conduct appears to violate:

• Section A.1: “Safeguarding the dignity of the individual is a fundamental requirement of Olympism.”
• Section A.2: “There shall be no discrimination between participants on the basis of race, sex, ethnic origin, religion, philosophical or political opinion, marital status or other grounds.” (Placement of a female athlete in a vulnerable position constitutes discrimination by failing to afford her equal protection.)
• Section A.4: “All forms of harassment against participants, be it physical, mental, professional or sexual, are prohibited.”
• Section A.5: “The Olympic parties shall guarantee the athletes conditions of safety, well‑being and medical care favourable to their physical and mental equilibrium.”
• Section B.5: “The Olympic parties shall use due care and diligence in fulfilling their mission. They must not act in a manner likely to tarnish the reputation of the Olympic Movement.”

LeBA, as an affiliate of LNOC and thus part of the Olympic Movement, is bound by these rules. By placing Maselela in a situation that any reasonable person would recognise as risky, LeBA has failed in its duty of care, potentially violated the prohibition on harassment – by creating an environment conducive to abuse – and has certainly acted in a manner likely to tarnish the reputation of the Olympic Movement.

LNOC’s muddled response

LNOC’s own investigation has produced deeply unsatisfactory answers. Selialia said that LNOC spoke individually with Maselela, asking her if she would participate in a similar future opportunity. She said she would.

Based on this, and the absence of evidence of actual sexual abuse, LNOC concluded that no further action was necessary.

“An investigation into the matter was conducted, during which the athlete was questioned and gave her account, and no sexual abuse occurred,” Selialia said.

This approach fundamentally misunderstands the purpose of safeguarding. Safeguarding is not about waiting for abuse to happen and then punishing the perpetrator. It is about preventing the conditions in which abuse can occur.

The fact that no abuse was reported does not mean that no risk existed, nor does it excuse the reckless decision to ignore every basic safeguard.

Selialia also acknowledged that “safeguarding issues include poor sanitation, amongst other things,” but this narrow view – focusing on physical conditions rather than the structural vulnerability of a young woman alone with her male coach – again misses the point.

To his credit, Selialia admitted that “LNOC must now strengthen its safeguarding regulations for travelling teams.”

But this admission comes too late for Maselela, who was already placed in harm’s way, and it does not address the systemic failure that allowed this situation to occur.

A culture of cover-ups

The defensive reactions from LeBA and the lukewarm response from LNOC suggest a deeper cultural problem – a tendency to circle the wagons when allegations arise, rather than putting athlete welfare first.

Letsoepa’s accusation that critics are driven by “personal agendas” rather than “genuine concern for the growth and development of boxing” is a classic tactic used by those who wish to avoid accountability.

So too is Sehloho’s framing of the whistle-blower as “jealous” of LeBA’s “achievements.”

These responses are not merely inadequate – they are dangerous. They send a message to athletes that speaking up will be met with hostility, and that officials are more concerned with protecting their reputations than with protecting the young women in their care.

The whistle-blower’s question echoes loudly: “If it were your child, would you allow such a situation?” That question, unanswered by any LeBA official, reveals the moral bankruptcy of their defence.

What must change now

The Eastern Cape incident should serve as a wake‑up call for Lesotho’s entire sports establishment.

LNOC must move beyond policy‑writing to genuine enforcement. The minimum travel standards already exist; they must be strictly applied, with clear consequences for any federation that violates them.

Federations that place athletes in unsafe accommodation should face suspension of funding, loss of accreditation, or expulsion from LNOC programmes.

Safeguarding must become preventive, not merely reactive. An allegation of a breach – even without proof of abuse – should trigger an automatic review and, where a clear risk has been created, disciplinary action. Waiting for actual abuse to occur before acting is a recipe for continued tragedy.

The culture of cover‑up must end. Whistle-blowers must be protected, not maligned. Officials who dismiss legitimate concerns as “jealousy” or “personal agendas” should themselves face scrutiny for failing in their duty of care.

Lesotho’s sports federations must adopt and enforce a clear rule: no female athlete shall be placed in overnight accommodation with a male coach or official without independent chaperoning and separate sleeping quarters. This is not a radical demand; it is basic common sense that is already standard practice in many countries.

The decision by LeBA officials to house a young female athlete alone with her male coach for two weeks in a foreign country was not a simple oversight. It was a deliberate choice – made by adults who should have known better, who had been trained in safeguarding, and who had access to written policies that explicitly prohibit such arrangements.

That choice, and the defensive, dismissive response that followed, speaks volumes about the state of athlete protection in Lesotho. For all the workshops, all the policies, all the fine words about athlete welfare, the reality remains that female athletes are still being placed in harm’s way – and when someone speaks up, they are accused of jealousy.

The IOC Code of Ethics demands dignity, safety, and non‑discrimination. The LNOC’s own policy demands clear guidelines for preventing misconduct. Yet in a rented house in an Eastern Cape township, those principles were abandoned.

Rapelang Maselela may have escaped this camp without suffering sexual abuse. But the system that put her there remains unchanged. And unless Lesotho’s sports leaders start treating safeguarding as a binding duty rather than a public‑relations exercise, it is not a question of if the next female athlete will be harmed – but when.

One policy. One purpose. A safer sporting future.

That is the slogan of the LNOC’s safeguarding campaign. For the sake of every young female athlete in Lesotho, it is time to make those words mean something.