Africa-Press – Lesotho. The Tribunal to investigate the fitness of the Director-General (DG) of the Directorate on Corruption and Economic Offences (DCEO) Advocate Mahlomola Manyokole was on Monday this week suspended owing to no appearance of the respondent’s lawyer. The complainant is the Attorney General and the respondent is Advocate Manyokole.
The suspended DG of the DCEO told the tribunal that his lawyer (Advocate Tekane Maqakachane) will enlist his legal services once he had signed the contract committing to payment of his services and the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between himself and the complaint’s lawyers.
The respondent further mentioned that his lawyer will commit once there is proof that his legal services will be paid. The complainant is represented by Attorney Monaheng Rasekoai and Advocate Christopher Jobo Lephuthing.
Visibly irate about the lack of proceedings, the tribunal Chairperson the retired Judge Teboho Moiloa said he does not understand why there is no headway yet there was an undertaking from the Attorney General that the responded legal fees will be handled by the state.
The Chairperson said the issue concerns the agreement between the parties and should not delay the work of the tribunal. “I am bending backwards to accommodate you [Advocate Manyokole],” said the Chairperson.
For his part, Advocate Manyokole said he will approach the Attorney General’s office for finalisation into the matter. Attorney Rasekoai took swipe at the matter saying they need to be “fair and robust” so that the matter is put to bed, also saying that the tribunal cannot be held “at ransom”. In the previous appearance, Advocate Manyokole told the Tribunal that he faces financial challenges to enable him to pay his legal representative.
In the letter addressed to the Attorney General written by Attorney Monaheng Rasekoai requesting the government to foot the legal fees, the letter says: “The tribunal attracts public interest features and we find it prudent to advise the esteemed office of the Honourable Attorney General to consider funding the legal fees of the suspended Director-General [Advocate Manyokole] to facilitate the sacrosanct principle of equality of arms in the conduct of these milestone proceedings.
“We wish to note and perhaps state that the facility is not meant to be exploited to the advantage of legal representatives involved but to sanction the principle of fairness and equality of arms in the conduct of the disciplinary enquiry.
We say this mindful of the amount of money (legal fees) demanded by the legal representative of respondent per the letter dated 31st May 2021 to the tune of M1 750 000. 00.
This facility does not give either of the two legal representatives a fait compli [a matter already decided] to demand whichever amount (s) he deems appropriate but will be a product of deliberations between the esteemed office of the Attorney General and the aforesaid legal representatives.
”
Reacting to this request, the Attorney General said: “The government will have no problem assisting Mr Manyokole in respect of his legal fees for purpose of fairness and equality as you put it.
In respect of rates, same rates will apply to all Counsel and this point should be made clear to Mr Manyokole and his legal representative. The same principle of fairness and equality should apply with equal force even when it comes to rates.
”
Making a way for the Tribunal to kick-off, the apex court held that: “The public spat between the Executive and the D-G will therefore continue unabated and cause great damage to the Kingdom’s orderly governance.
This matter should proceed to finality with deliberate haste so that the true facts are established in an open and transparent manner”. The Court of Appeal further dismissed Advocate Manyokole’s prayer that the establishment of the Tribunal be set aside.
The Prime Minister (PM) Dr. Moeketsi Majoro had in December 2020 set a Tribunal as contained in the Gazette of Legal Notice No.139 of 2020, Appointment of a Tribunal in Terms of Section 4(5) of the Prevention of Corruption and Economic Offences. The PM has set up the tribunal pursuant to section 4(5) of the Prevention of Corruption and economic Offences Act, 1999.
The tribunal is set to “investigate and determine the question of removing the Director-General of the Directorate on Corruption and Economic Offences, Advocate Mahlomola Manyokole [and] make recommendations to the Prime Minister as to whether or not Advocate Mahlomola Manyokole ought to be removed, from office”.
The three member tribunal is made up of the retired Justice Teboho Moiloa who is its Chairperson, and its two members are retired Justice Semapo Peete and Madam Justice Polo Banyane (in office).
The tribunal’s work is expected to take eight weeks after which it will report to the PM its findings and recommendations or on a date which may be determined by the PM.
Meanwhile, Informative Newspaper had seen a “show cause” letter dated December 20, 2020 written by then Minister of Law and Justice Professor Nqosa Mahao to the DCEO DG.
The letter wanted the Advocate Manyokole to “show cause why [the Minister] may not recommend your suspension from duty in terms of section 4 (6) of Prevention of Corruption and Economic Offences Act No. 5 of 1999 (As amended)”.
“There is a criminal case staged against you whereupon you are being accused of obstruction of justice.
You irregularly and illegally staged a litigation and filed an affidavit before a court of law in CIV/APN/451/2020 wherein you staged a litigation citing the Directorate on Corruption and Economic Offences as a litigant in a case in which the interests which were being sought to be salvaged were personally yours and nothing to do with institutional and functional autonomy of the DCEO and acted contrary to the law by acting as such.
”
Also, this year, the PM served him with a suspension letter.
“Acting pursuant to the provisions of SECTION 4 (6) OF PREVENTION ON CORRUPTION AND ECONOMIC OFFENCES ACT NO. 5 OF 1999 (As amended) – and also given the fact that you are also an accused in the above-referenced case, I am also empowered under common law to place you on suspension on account of criminal proceedings in which you are currently on bail with full pay and benefits forthwith.
“This suspension shall be operational until such time when the question of your fitness to hold office or otherwise has been fully investigated and concluded by the aforementioned tribunal.
On even note, the criminal trial in which you are charged and currently on bail is yet another weighty factor that prompts the suspension that I currently place on you.
Upon receipt of this letter, you must submit all the property of the Directorate in your possession- be it, keys or any other material in your possession which is necessary for the smooth transition of your suspension to your immediate junior,” reads the suspension letter in pertinent part.
Following his suspension he sought remedy at the High Court petitioning it to declare his suspension as unlawful to which the said court held that his suspension was unlawful.
Also, the High Court ruling was upheld by the Court of Appeal that: “…the Prime Minister and the Minister’s conduct in suspending Mr. Manyokole while the matter was sub judice equally calls for censure.
It must be made clear that the Government has an obligation to respect the independence of the courts and not to render the courts’ decisions brutum fulmen [an empty threat].
The rule of law requires no less. ”
Advocate Manyokole had appeared before the Magistrate court on three charges. He was charged with three counts and was released on bail.
He faces the charges relating to defeating the course of justice, money laundering and corruption wherein he is alleged to have contravened Section 87 (2) of Penal Code No. 6 of 2010, Section 25 of Money Laundering and Proceeds of Crime Act no 4 of 2008 and Section 21 (3) (b) of the Prevention of Corruption and Economic Offences Act No. 5 of 1999 as amended by Act No. 8 of 2006 respectively.
According to the charge sheet, the accused is alleged to have “unlawfully or intentionally” took exhibits in the form of money to the tune of M83 000, “acquire[ed] or conceal[ed]” the “true nature of that property, movement, or ownership” and “did unlawfully and intention (sic) abuses the functions or position of his office, in the performance or failure to perform or act, in violation of the law, or in the discharge of his functions for the purpose of obtaining an undue advantage for himself or for another person to wit…”.
The court papers further say that Manyokole deposited the aforesaid amount to the institution’s Criminal Assets Recovery Fund held at FNB before the case was completed and ‘without due process or disposal order of court”.
The next hearing is expected to reconvene on September 20, a date on which all hurdles are expected to have been addressed. Also, then the respondent is expected to have filed his answers to the complaints laid against him.
