MASERU – In a judgment that cuts straight to the heart of political power and accountability in Lesotho, the High Court has ruled that Parliament cannot simply vote away a constitutional obligation designed to stop politicians from profiting from government contracts, declaring that lawmakers acted unconstitutionally when they rejected a bill meant to regulate conflicts of interest among Members of Parliament.

The ruling, delivered on 5 March 2026, orders the National Assembly to enact legislation regulating conflicts of interest within twelve months, bringing to an abrupt halt what the court effectively described as Parliament’s attempt to sidestep the Constitution.  

The constitutional challenge was brought by Honourable Teboho Mojapela, together with the Basotho Covenant Movement (BCM) and the Popular Front for Democracy (PFD). They sought judicial intervention after the National Assembly rejected the Conflict of Interest Bill, 2024, a private member’s bill that sought to bar politicians with financial interests in government contracts from serving in Parliament.

The respondents in the case included the Speaker of the National Assembly, the Leader of the House, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Law and Constitutional Affairs, and the Attorney General.  

In a strongly worded decision, the three-judge bench made it clear that while Parliament has the power to debate and vote on legislation, it cannot use the mechanism of voting to defeat obligations imposed by the Constitution itself.

“The Constitution is the supreme law of the land,” the court emphasized, adding that all branches of government are bound by it.  

The Bill That Sparked the Constitutional Battle

The dispute traces its origins to November 2024, when Dr Tšepo Lipholo, a member of the National Assembly, introduced a private member’s bill known as the Conflict of Interest Bill, 2024.

The bill sought to implement provisions contained in Section 59(1)(e) of the Constitution of Lesotho, which deals with disqualification from membership of Parliament where an individual holds interests in government contracts.

Its purpose was straightforward: to prevent situations where politicians participate in government decisions while simultaneously benefiting from state contracts.

After the bill was properly introduced, seconded and debated in Parliament, it was defeated by a majority vote of Members of Parliament present in the chamber.

That decision triggered the constitutional challenge which ultimately reached the High Court.

Parliament’s Defence

During the proceedings, Parliament argued that the courts should not interfere in the internal workings of the legislature.

The Speaker of the National Assembly maintained that parliamentary decisions taken in accordance with standing orders are protected under the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers, which requires the judiciary, legislature and executive to operate independently.

According to Parliament’s argument, once a bill has been debated and voted upon in the National Assembly, the matter should be considered closed.

However, the court rejected this interpretation.

Court: Parliament Cannot Defeat the Constitution

The judges held that although Parliament has the authority to vote on legislative matters, it cannot use that power to defeat the Constitution.

Allowing Parliament to vote down legislation that the Constitution requires it to enact would effectively permit lawmakers to nullify constitutional obligations by simple majority vote.

Such a situation, the court warned, would undermine the supremacy of the Constitution.

The court therefore concluded that the National Assembly’s decision to reject the Conflict of Interest Bill amounted to non-compliance with a constitutional mandate.

The Meaning of “May”

A key issue before the court was the interpretation of the word “may” in Section 59(1)(e) of the Constitution.

Parliament argued that the word suggests discretion, meaning lawmakers could decide whether or not to enact legislation dealing with conflicts of interest.

But the court ruled that within the context of the Constitution, the word must be interpreted as creating a duty rather than a choice.

Without such legislation, the constitutional safeguard designed to prevent politicians with financial interests in government contracts from serving in Parliament would remain meaningless.

Guarding Against Abuse of Power

The court also addressed the broader rationale behind the constitutional provision.

Individuals who hold commercial interests in government contracts while occupying political office face strong incentives to influence public policy for personal gain.

The Constitution therefore anticipates a legal framework to prevent such conflicts and protect the integrity of the state.

In its reasoning, the court noted that individuals with commercial interests in government could potentially use their positions to secure or protect contracts with the state, a situation that undermines public trust in democratic institutions.

A Direct Order to Parliament

Having found Parliament’s conduct unconstitutional, the High Court issued a mandamus ordercompelling the National Assembly to enact conflict-of-interest legislation within one year.

While Parliament remains free to determine the specific content of the law, it cannot refuse to enact legislation altogether, the judges ruled.

A Defining Constitutional Moment

The judgment is likely to become one of the most consequential constitutional rulings in recent years.

It reinforces the principle that constitutional obligations cannot be ignored by political majoritiesand that the courts remain the ultimate guardians of the Constitution.

For years, governance experts and civil society organisations have raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest within Lesotho’s political system.

The High Court’s decision now forces Parliament to confront that issue directly.

Whether lawmakers comply with the ruling or attempt to resist it could determine the next chapter in Lesotho’s evolving constitutional democracy.

For now, however, one message from the judiciary is unmistakable: Parliament cannot vote its way out of the Constitution.