Maseru – A recent by Government of Lesotho and civic organization SECTION 2 has sparked a heated debate over the role of the military in civilian life and the protection of human rights in the country. The controversy centers on remarks made by Prime Minister Ntsokoane Sam Matekane and Deputy Commander of the Lesotho Defense Force (LDF), Major General Matela Matobakele, during a reception at Makoanyane Barracks for soldiers returning from Mozambique.
In a statement released on 19 August, the Government of Lesotho expressed concern over what it described as “distorted statements” circulating on social media. These statements, according to the Government, misrepresented the Prime Minister’s call for the military to suppress violent crime and distorted the Deputy Commander’s remarks about the judiciary and human rights defenders. The Government accused civic organizations, including SECTION 2, of spreading misinformation and undermining its efforts to combat crime, particularly the wave of killings that has plagued the country.
“The Government believes these formations have the right to hold opinions, but they do not have the right to misinform, mislead, or confuse the public simply to push their different agenda,” the statement read. The Government defended the Prime Minister’s directive, asserting that it was within the legal framework of the Constitution and the Lesotho Defense Force Act, which grants the Prime Minister authority over the operational use of the military to maintain law and order.
However, SECTION 2, in a strongly worded response dated 21 August, condemned the Government’s statement as an attempt to spin the truth and deflect attention from the serious issues at hand. The civic group accused the Government of engaging in a “classic tactic to deflect from the real issue—the troubling and authoritarian rhetoric of the Prime Minister and the Deputy Commander.”
“Let us be unequivocal: our statement was based on the exact words spoken by these officials, and our interpretation is grounded in the context and potential implications of their remarks,” SECTION 2 asserted. The group expressed alarm at the Prime Minister’s directive, arguing that employing military tactics in civilian settings “dangerously overreaches the constitutional mandate.”
SECTION 2 also took issue with Major General Matobakele’s comments, which they interpreted as an attack on the judiciary and human rights defenders. The group criticized the Government’s defense of these remarks, stating that it “dangerously undermines the rule of law” and suggested that such rhetoric could incite violence against those fulfilling their constitutional duties.
“The implication that human rights defenders and judges need to be subjected to violence to understand the suffering of victims is a gross perversion of justice,” SECTION 2 stated, adding that the narrative being promoted by the Government was both unfounded and dangerous.
The Government, on the other hand, maintained that the remarks had been taken out of context and that the civic organizations were using the incident to advance their own political agendas. The Government’s statement emphasized that the Prime Minister’s directive was aimed at curbing the high crime rate, particularly the “atrocious murders of innocent citizens,” and that it was necessary to restore national stability and protect citizens’ right to live in peace.
“The Government warns the public about the misinformation contained in the circulating statements and to be wary of their ill intentions,” the statement concluded, urging Basotho to support the Government’s efforts to fight crime and maintain order.
In contrast, SECTION 2 reiterated its call for a full retraction of the statements made by the Prime Minister and Major General Matobakele, along with a public apology and a reaffirmation of the Government’s commitment to upholding the Constitution and protecting human rights.
This exchange between the Government and SECTION 2 has highlighted the ongoing tension in Lesotho over the use of military force in domestic affairs and the balance between maintaining security and respecting human rights. As the debate continues, both sides seem entrenched in their positions, with the Government asserting its authority and responsibility to protect citizens, and civic organizations like SECTION 2 advocating for the supremacy of the Constitution and the rule of law.
