Оппозиция Лесото требует вернуть страну в повестку регионального сообщества из-за конфликта с правительством

LESOTHO should never again become a permanent item on the Southern African Development Community (SADC) agenda. The country’s removal from the SADC Organ Troika agenda in August 2025 was an important milestone after more than a decade during which regional leaders repeatedly had to intervene in our domestic political and security crises. Less than a year after Lesotho celebrated that removal, there are already calls for the country to be placed back under regional scrutiny. To find ourselves once more appealing to SADC to rescue us from disputes that should be resolved by our own institutions would be a profound national failure. That is why the latest confrontation between the government and opposition over alleged non-compliance with court orders should be resolved amicably. The opposition has petitioned SADC, arguing that the government has systematically ignored binding court decisions, and has suspended its participation in the national reforms process until those orders are implemented. Its petition points to a string of unresolved disputes — involving the Ombudsman, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the former Commissioner General of Revenue Services Lesotho, former National Security Service officers, and a former principal secretary — as evidence of a growing disregard for judicial authority. Prime Minister Sam Matekane has firmly rejected that characterisation. He argues that the opposition is presenting an inaccurate and selective account of these cases, insisting that in some instances no such court order was ever issued, while in others the question of compliance is itself still before the courts. For Mr Matekane, allegations of contempt are matters for judges to rule on, not for politicians to declare. These competing claims will ultimately have to be tested and settled in court, on the facts. Whether one sides with the opposition or the government, however, is not the central issue. The deeper concern is that Lesotho is once again projecting the image of a country trapped in perpetual political conflict and constitutional uncertainty — and that political disputes are being allowed to escalate to a point where SADC may again feel compelled to supervise our democracy. Basotho should remember why SADC became involved in our affairs in the first place. The reforms process was not born out of convenience. It emerged after years of instability, security sector disputes, constitutional crises and politically motivated violence — a legacy stretching back to the 2014 attempted military coup, political assassinations and repeated constitutional breakdowns — that repeatedly threatened national peace. SADC invested considerable time, resources and political capital to help Lesotho confront these challenges. When the country was removed from the Organ Troika agenda following passage of the Tenth Amendment, it signalled growing confidence that Basotho institutions could manage national affairs without extraordinary regional oversight. That achievement should not be taken lightly, and it must not be squandered. No sovereign nation should aspire to remain under perpetual supervision. A country risks undermining confidence in its own institutions when it constantly looks beyond its borders to resolve domestic disputes. Strong democracies are built when courts, Parliament, civil society, political parties and state institutions are allowed to function effectively within the framework of the Constitution. This is precisely why the current standoff is so troubling — and why it is especially concerning that some opposition leaders are now openly calling for Lesotho’s return to the SADC Troika agenda. Whatever their justification, inviting external intervention should always be a last resort, never a political weapon deployed the moment domestic disagreements turn heated. The opposition has every right to raise concerns about governance, constitutionalism and the rule of law; in any democracy, governments must be held accountable. The government, in turn, has a duty to explain its actions and demonstrate compliance with court decisions — the rule of law is not optional, and it is the foundation on which democratic legitimacy rests. But both sides must recognise that political point-scoring carries consequences far beyond immediate partisan interest. If the government is indeed complying with the law, it must provide convincing, transparent evidence rather than rely on legal technicalities; the public deserves to see institutions functioning and court decisions respected in both letter and spirit. Where implementation is genuinely disputed or delayed, that too must be explained openly, with proof that the matter is being pursued through proper legal channels. Equally, the opposition must exhaust domestic remedies — the Constitutional Court, the Court of Appeal and Parliament — before seeking regional intervention. SADC should never become a substitute court of appeal for political disagreements, and walking away from the reforms process risks delaying the very changes needed to prevent future crises. Those reforms were never meant to belong to any single government or opposition bloc; they are a national project meant to strengthen governance and forestall the disputes now consuming public attention. The greatest danger is that both sides become so focused on defeating one another that they lose sight of the national interest. Lesotho’s economy remains fragile, unemployment is high, and poverty continues to affect thousands of households. Investors and development partners watch political developments closely, and every headline suggesting institutional conflict or constitutional uncertainty damages confidence in the country’s future. Basotho know, from hard experience, the cost of instability and the embarrassment of regional intervention when a country is seen as unable to govern itself. Mr Matekane’s appeal for the opposition to return to the reforms process deserves serious consideration; constitutional change imposed by only one side of the political divide will always remain vulnerable to challenge. But legitimacy requires more than invitations to dialogue — it requires visible, demonstrable commitment to constitutional governance and respect for institutions. The government and opposition must return to meaningful engagement. Legal disputes belong in the courts, not in political rallies or competing public narratives. Institutions must be allowed to perform their constitutional functions without interference, and the reforms process must continue. Lesotho fought hard to leave the SADC agenda behind. Returning there would not be progress — it would be proof that the lessons of the past decade have gone unlearned. The responsibility now rests with both the government and opposition to ensure the country moves forward, not backward. Lesotho’s future must be settled in Maseru, through strong institutions and respect for the rule of law — not once again on the agenda of SADC’s peace and security machinery.