Maseru — A major constitutional confrontation has landed before the High Court of Lesotho, placing the Law Society of Lesotho, the Minister of Justice and Law, and the Attorney General under scrutiny over decisions that human-rights organisations argue threaten access to justice for the country’s poorest and most marginalised communities.
In an application filed under Constitutional Case No. 0030/2025, three applicants — Women and Law in Southern Africa Research Trust Lesotho (WLSA Lesotho), Advocate Bataung Ntoko, and Seinoli Legal Centre — are asking the court to review and set aside decisions by the Law Society that withdrew WLSA’s accreditation to provide legal representation and refused to issue or renew practising certificates for lawyers employed by non-governmental organisations (NGOs).
At the centre of the dispute is the interpretation and application of section 7(3) of the Law Society Act of 1983, which the applicants argue has been applied arbitrarily, irrationally, and in a manner inconsistent with the Constitution.
Who is involved
WLSA Lesotho, registered in 2000, is a long-established human-rights NGO providing free legal services, advocacy, research, and legal education, particularly to women, children, and indigent communities across Lesotho. Its work spans litigation, community outreach, policy reform, and paralegal training, with an operational footprint extending into remote and hard-to-reach districts such as Quthing, Qacha’s Nek, Thaba-Tseka, Mokhotlong, Butha-Buthe, and Leribe.
The second applicant, Advocate Bataung Ntoko, is a duly admitted advocate of the courts of Lesotho who works within WLSA’s legal department. The third applicant, Seinoli Legal Centre, is another NGO engaged in legal services and public-interest litigation.
The respondents are the Law Society of Lesotho, cited as the statutory regulator of the legal profession; the Minister of Justice and Law; and the Attorney General, cited in his capacity as the principal legal adviser to the government.
What triggered the dispute
According to the founding affidavit, tensions arose after a complaint was lodged against WLSA with the Law Society following the submission of a list of its admitted legal practitioners for the renewal of their practising certificates. The applicants contend that, following this complaint, the Law Society’s attitude towards WLSA “changed drastically,” culminating in the withdrawal of its accreditation and the refusal to renew or issue practising certificates to its lawyers.
WLSA alleges that these steps were taken without affording it or its legal practitioners a proper hearing, and that requests for procedural fairness were dismissed on the basis that a hearing would “serve no purpose as it cannot reach any other conclusion but subverting illegality,” a position the applicants describe as deeply irregular and unlawful.
The legal challenge
The applicants argue that the Law Society acted ultra vires, irrationally, and in breach of basic administrative-law principles by unilaterally withdrawing accreditation and withholding practising certificates without due process.
They further argue that section 7(3) of the Law Society Act, properly interpreted, does not prohibit lawyers employed by NGOs from practising law or representing clients in court. To the extent that the provision is read as excluding such lawyers on the basis that they are “not in private practice,” the applicants contend that this interpretation is unconstitutional.
In particular, they argue that such an interpretation violates constitutional guarantees of equality before the law and equal protection, as well as the right to a fair trial. They point out that denying indigent persons access to NGO-provided legal representation effectively shuts the courthouse doors to those who cannot afford private lawyeyrs.
Consequences for access to justice
A significant portion of the court papers is devoted to outlining the practical consequences of the Law Society’s decisions. WLSA warns that the refusal to issue practising certificates to NGO-employed lawyers could force retrenchments, exacerbate unemployment among law graduates, and dismantle one of the few functional access-to-justice mechanisms available to vulnerable communities in Lesotho.
The applicants reject suggestions that affected clients could rely on pro bono services from private practitioners, describing such an approach as unrealistic and inadequate. They note that private legal practitioners are concentrated in urban centres, while NGOs often operate in rural and underserved areas where legal services are already scarce. Pro bono work, they argue, is neither compulsory nor systematically regulated in a way that could substitute for structured NGO legal aid.
They also point to the government’s own admission that state-provided legal aid is under-resourced, understaffed, and overwhelmed, citing official reports acknowledging the inadequacy of legal aid provision across the country.
Relief sought from the court
Among the orders sought, the applicants ask the High Court to:
• Compel the Law Society to dispatch the full record of proceedings relating to the revocation of WLSA’s accreditation;
• Review and set aside the withdrawal of WLSA’s accreditation and the refusal to issue practising certificates to NGO-employed lawyers;
• Declare that duly admitted legal practitioners employed by NGOs are entitled to practise law and represent clients in court;
• Alternatively, declare the impugned portion of section 7(3) of the Law Society Act unconstitutional to the extent that it excludes such practitioners;
• Order the issuance of practising certificates upon payment of the requisite fees
A case with far-reaching implications
While framed as a dispute between NGOs and the professional regulator, the case raises broader questions about who is entitled to practise law in Lesotho, how regulatory power is exercised, and whether statutory interpretation can lawfully narrow access to justice for the poor.
If the applicants succeed, the ruling could clarify the legal status of NGO-employed lawyers and reaffirm the constitutional obligation to ensure meaningful access to justice. If they fail, human-rights organisations warn that the decision could hollow out public-interest litigation and leave thousands without practical legal recourse.
The matter is expected to be closely watched by the legal profession, civil society, and policymakers alike, as it cuts to the heart of how justice is delivered — and to whom — in Lesotho
You have 1 free article left this month. Create a free account for 15 articles/month.
Create free account
