MASERU-Fresh details and sharp exchanges emerged in court this week as the bribery and money laundering case against ‘Mapuleng Montši continued before Thamae Thamae in Maseru, with prosecutors questioning the credibility of her claims that money she received from job seekers was merely financial assistance rather than bribes.
Montši stands accused of helping individuals secure employment within the Ministry of Home Affairs Lesotho in exchange for payments, while also allegedly handling funds believed to be proceeds of crime. The case, which dates back several years, has drawn public interest because it touches on fairness in public sector recruitment and the persistent problem of corruption.
During cross-examination, the prosecution highlighted what it described as inconsistencies in Montši’s earlier statements. The court heard that in previous appearances, she had denied working for the ministry and claimed she had no connections to people employed there. This week, however, she reportedly changed her stance, telling the court that she had provided investigators with the names of 10 individuals who eventually secured jobs at the ministry.
The shift in her account became a focal point for the prosecutor, who pressed her to explain how she could assist people into employment if she had no links to the institution.
Montši told the court that some of the individuals she helped were members of her church community. She said she had received their names from the pastor’s wife and merely offered support to people who were struggling financially. According to her testimony, she did not demand or request money for her assistance.
Instead, she claimed she lent them money out of goodwill.
She explained that some job seekers lacked proper clothing and other essentials needed to start work, while others needed transport money to travel long distances. As a result, she said she advanced different amounts to various individuals, including M10, 000, M500, M4, 500and M1, 200.
Her lawyer suggested that these transactions reflected acts of generosity rather than corruption.
But the prosecution strongly disputed this narrative.
The prosecutor reminded the court that several witnesses who have already testified described a different arrangement. According to their statements, payments were made to Montši only after they had successfully obtained employment. In their view, the money was not a loan but a form of compensation or reward.
This, the prosecution argued, pointed to a deliberate scheme rather than charity.
“The payments followed the jobs,” the prosecutor emphasized, suggesting a clear link between employment and money exchanged.
Court proceedings also revisited the formal charges Montši faces.
Under Count 1, she is charged with violating provisions of the Prevention of Corruption and Economic Offences Act No. 5 of 1999, which criminalises the acceptance or solicitation of benefits as inducements in dealings involving public bodies.
The charge sheet alleges that between October 2017 and April 2018, Montši directly or indirectly accepted benefits as a reward for using her influence to assist individuals in securing contracts or employment within a public institution.
Prosecutors allege she demanded and accepted monthly payments of M1, 500 from each person she helped. The state argues that she was not officially assigned to the ministry and had no lawful authority or influence over hiring decisions, making the alleged payments unlawful inducements.
Count 2 relates to alleged money laundering under the Money Laundering and Proceeds of Crime Act 2008. Here, the state contends that Montši unlawfully acquired or used M70, 155 while knowing, or having reason to suspect, that the funds were derived from corrupt activities.
According to the charge, these funds were accumulated over the same period as the alleged bribery scheme.
In court, the atmosphere remained tense as both sides tried to shape the narrative.
The defence maintained that there was no proof Montšiinfluenced recruitment decisions or that the ministry’s hiring process was compromised. They suggested that the witnesses’ testimonies could be coloured by misunderstanding or assumption, arguing that financial help between acquaintances should not automatically be interpreted as corruption.
Meanwhile, the prosecution insisted the pattern of payments and timing of employment pointed to something more calculated.
Legal observers say the case hinges on whether the court believes Montši’s explanation that the money was lent rather than demanded. If the magistrate finds that the payments were tied to securing jobs, the charges could carry serious consequences, including heavy fines or imprisonment.
Beyond the courtroom, the case has sparked broader conversations about accountability and transparency in public service recruitment. Many Basotho have long expressed concerns about favoritism and backdoor dealings in government hiring, with some arguing that deserving candidates are often overlooked.
As the matter continues, more witnesses are expected to take the stand to clarify the nature of their interactions with Montši and whether money changed hands as part of a job-for-cash arrangement.
For now, the accused remains out of custody as proceedings continue.
The court adjourned with the understanding that the trial will resume soon, with both sides preparing to present further evidence.
Whether the payments were acts of kindness or calculated bribes is a question the court must now carefully weigh, a decision that could set an important precedent for how similar cases are handled in the future.
