Africa-Press – Lesotho. MURDER-accused Democratic Congress (DC) legislator, Thabiso Lekitla, has intensified his efforts to have Justice ‘Mabatsoeneng Hlaele removed from presiding over his trial, accusing her of inappropriate conduct and bias during proceedings held last year.
Through his lawyer, Advocate Motiea Teele KC, the Mekaling lawmaker alleges that Justice Hlaele made improper remarks when he applied for a postponement of his trial in September 2024.
Adv Teele had filed for the judge’s recusal, arguing that her criticism of his co-counsel, Adv Lepeli Molapo, during the 2 September 2024 postponement application demonstrated bias.
He said the judge appeared to have already concluded that Mr Lekitla was employing delaying tactics.
He further contended that Justice Hlaele’s reference to Mr Lekitla’s political status unfairly prejudiced him, suggesting that the court was treating him differently because he is a Member of Parliament (MP).
However, the recusal application was dismissed in October 2024, with Justice Hlaele rejecting the claims and describing Lekitla as “overly sensitive”.
“The applicant (Lekitla) is overly sensitive, overly suspicious, and finicky,” ruled Justice Hlaele.
Dissatisfied with the decision, Mr Lekitla appealed the ruling. Arguing before a Court of Appeal panel comprising President Kananelo Mosito and Justices Phillip Musonda and Johann van der Westhuizen, Adv Teele said Justice Hlaele’s choice of words was improper.
“My Lords, this matter arises from when the appellant, through my junior (Adv Lepeli Molapo), requested a postponement of the trial to afford him (Lekitla) enough time to settle the outstanding balances with his lawyers. That generated a heated exchange between the judge a quo and my junior. The judge a quo concluded that a pro deo lawyer should be appointed for the client,” Adv Teele said.
He argued that the judge’s remarks were inappropriate and suggested bias.
“The gist of the debate was that the judge believed the accused was playing delaying tactics and did not want the case to proceed. Her choice of words was wrong because she said it was not her problem that the accused had not properly instructed his lawyers. In fact, it should be the court’s duty to ensure that every accused person has the opportunity to be represented by counsel of their choice.”
Adv Teele clarified that their appeal was not about the refusal of the postponement but about the comments the judge made.
“We are not complaining about her discretion to refuse the postponement; we are challenging the comments she made, which created an impression that she would not be impartial. She also suggested that the accused was using his political office to waste the court’s time. It was improper for the judge to say that the accused conveniently chose to instruct lawyers he could not afford.”
According to Adv Teele, the appellant had only sought time to raise the required legal fees.
“The appellant was always clear that he needed time to raise enough funds to properly instruct both senior and junior counsel. He explained that the required fees ranged between M150 000 and M200 000, which he had not anticipated. He had already paid part of the fees — it was not that he could not afford or refused to pay.”
He argued that Justice Hlaele’s conduct was inconsistent with proper judicial etiquette and asked the court to order that the trial start afresh before a different judge.
“This is not proper etiquette from a judicial officer. Every accused person must be allowed to be represented by counsel of their choice. We pray that this court upholds the appeal and directs that the matter be remitted to the High Court to start de novo before a new judge,” he said.
However, Acting Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Adv Lehlanako Mofilikoane, countered that Justice Hlaele’s conduct was appropriate, as she was within her rights to inquire into the reasons for the postponement.
“The court has powers to inquire about the reasons for postponement, and that was what the judge a quo was doing by engaging with Advocate Molapo to understand whether there were valid grounds for postponement,” said Adv Mofilikoane.
She also argued that the case had been dragging on for too long, making the judge’s inquiries reasonable.
“This matter has been pending before the court for four years since the first appearance, so it was reasonable for the judge to inquire into the reasons for the postponement. In ensuring a fair trial, there was nothing improper in her inquiry,” she said.
Regarding references to Mr Lekitla’s political status, Adv Mofilikoane said the issue was raised by the accused himself.
“The issue of the accused being a parliamentarian was brought up by him, and there was nothing wrong with the court referring to it. While judges must avoid inappropriate language, in this case there was nothing wrong or biased in what the judge said,” she said, urging the court to dismiss the appeal.
After hearing arguments from both sides, Justice Mosito reserved judgment until 7 November 2025.
“Thank you very much for your helpful submissions, counsel. We should be able to come back with answers on 7 November 2025,” Justice Mosito said.
Mr Lekitla is charged with the murder of Mopeli Rapholo, whom he allegedly shot in Lithabaneng, Maseru, on 5 December 2020. The case has been on hold since October last year pending the outcome of the appeal.
For More News And Analysis About Lesotho Follow Africa-Press
