Maseru
In what could become a defining moment for digital rights in Lesotho, prominent attorney Adv. Lemohang Nzuzi has filed a groundbreaking constitutional case against the Lesotho Mounted Police Service (LMPS), challenging their increasingly controversial practice of publishing suspects’ photographs and personal details on social media before trial.
Key Players
• Applicant: Adv. Lemohang Nzuzi (K.D. Mabulu & Co Attorneys)
• Respondents: LMPS, Commissioner of Police, Minister of Police, Attorney General
• Jurisdiction: High Court – Constitutional Division
The Heart of the Matter
Nzuzi, a well-regarded member of the Law Society of Lesotho, claims the police violated his constitutional rights when they posted his photograph and arrest information on their official Facebook page on July 10, 2025, after he was stopped for a routine traffic offense.
“This case goes beyond personal grievance,” Nzuzi says in his affidavit. “It speaks to a dangerous culture where law enforcement uses social media as a modern-day pillory, subjecting individuals to trial by public opinion before any court has spoken.”
Alleged Constitutional Breaches
The 28-page application highlights four core violations of Lesotho’s Constitution:
1. Right to Privacy (Section 11) – Unauthorized dissemination of personal information without consent
2. Right to Human Dignity (Section 4(1)(b)) – Public humiliation through online exposure
3. Freedom from Degrading Treatment (Section 8) – Emotional and psychological harm inflicted by digital shaming
4. Presumption of Innocence (Section 12) – Damage caused by prejudicial publicity before legal adjudication
What the Applicant Seeks
Nzuzi is asking the High Court to grant relief that could drastically reshape how police interact with the public online:
1. Declaration of Unconstitutionality – A formal ruling that LMPS’s social media practices infringe constitutional rights
2. Remedial Action –
• Immediate removal of the offending Facebook post
• A public apology and retraction from LMPS
3. Policy Reform –
• Introduction of a human rights-based social media code for LMPS
• Clear internal guidelines on publishing information about suspects
4. Constitutional Damages – M1.5 million to compensate for the violation of rights
5. Costs Award – Full legal costs to be borne by the respondents
Drawing Strength from Global Precedents
To bolster his case, Nzuzi cites progressive international frameworks:
• South Africa: Legal limits imposed by the SAPS Act on naming and shaming suspects
• United States (California): AB 1475 prohibits posting mugshots of non-violent arrestees on social media
• France: CNRS research into the effects of digital exposure by law enforcement
• Namibia: NAMPOL’s evolving policies on social media conduct
These examples, Nzuzi argues, underscore a growing global recognition that unchecked digital exposure by state actors can inflict irreversible harm.
Implications for Law Enforcement and Rights Protection
Legal commentators suggest the case could become a catalyst for reform not just in Lesotho, but across the region.
• It could lay the groundwork for Africa’s first court-defined digital rights framework in law enforcement
• Compel policing institutions to rethink and regulate their online conduct
• Offer legal protection for vulnerable individuals disproportionately affected by online public shaming
• Prompt broader conversations on how to balance public interest with individual rights in the digital age
Timeline
• July 10, 2025 – Facebook post published by LMPS
• July 15, 2025 – Court application filed
• August 2025 – Hearing scheduled
What Happens Next
The High Court’s Constitutional Division is set to hear the matter in August 2025. With the Police Commissioner, Minister of Police, and the Attorney General all listed as respondents, the case is poised to be a high-profile test of state accountability in the age of social media.
“When police become publishers, the rules must change,” Nzuzi asserts. “This case is about affirming that our constitutional rights don’t end at the screen’s edge.”
