Kananelo Boloetse Lesotho Constitutional Challenge: Parliament Bypassed Referendum

• Journalist Kananelo Boloetse and Section Two initiated a constitutional challenge in September 2025 against Lesotho's Tenth Constitutional Amendment.
• They argue Parliament bypassed a required referendum for changes affecting fundamental human rights in Chapter II of the Constitution.
• The amendment introduced sections 20A (affirmative action) and 22A (public-interest litigation), which Boloetse considers substantive changes to the Bill of Rights.
• The Speaker of the National Assembly, Tlohang Sekhamane, maintains the amendment followed Section 85 procedures and did not require a referendum.
• The High Court, acting as the Constitutional Court, has invited interested organizations to join the proceedings.

A significant legal battle has commenced in Lesotho, as journalist and human rights advocate Kananelo Boloetse, alongside the organization Section Two, has launched a constitutional challenge against the manner in which recent amendments to the nation's supreme law were enacted. The core of the Kananelo Boloetse Lesotho constitutional challenge, filed in September 2025, asserts that Parliament bypassed a crucial constitutional requirement mandating citizen approval through a referendum for specific changes to the Constitution.

The High Court, operating as the Constitutional Court, has acknowledged the broad public interest in this matter. Consequently, it has extended an invitation to various organizations to join the proceedings, allowing them to present their perspectives on the legality and implications of the contested constitutional alterations. This move underscores the potential far-reaching consequences of the Section Two constitutional challenge for Lesotho's legal framework and democratic processes.

Kananelo Boloetse, who is also a co-founder and chairperson of Section Two, an organization dedicated to upholding constitutional supremacy, democracy, and human rights, contends that the constitutional changes implemented last year directly impact Chapter II of the Constitution. This chapter is specifically designed to safeguard fundamental human rights and freedoms within Lesotho. Boloetse's central argument is that any amendment affecting Chapter II necessitates approval via a national referendum before it can be presented to the King for assent, a procedure he claims was entirely disregarded.

The specific provisions at the heart of this dispute include Section 20A, which introduces affirmative action measures for marginalized groups, and Section 22A, establishing frameworks for public-interest litigation. Boloetse maintains that these additions represent substantive modifications to the Bill of Rights, thereby triggering the referendum requirement. He emphatically states that the Constitution guaranteed his participation in this critical process through a referendum, and that fundamental right has been denied. Conversely, Tlohang Sekhamane, the Speaker of the National Assembly, has refuted these claims, asserting that the Lesotho Tenth Constitutional Amendment did not necessitate a referendum. Sekhamane argues that the amendment adhered to the procedural stipulations of Section 85 and is therefore valid, further stating that Sections 20A and 22A do not fundamentally transform the Constitution.

The origins of this contentious issue trace back to May 2024, when the Minister of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs introduced the Tenth and 11th Constitutional Amendment Bills to the National Assembly. During June 2024, both Section Two and the Transformation Resource Centre submitted their concerns to Parliament's portfolio committee on Law and Public Safety Cluster, highlighting fears that Parliament was misusing its amendment powers to fundamentally restructure the Constitution under the guise of minor adjustments. Despite these objections, the National Assembly proceeded with the Bills, forwarding them to the Senate in October 2024.

The Senate subsequently approved the Lesotho Tenth Constitutional Amendment Bill around June 2025, after which it was returned to the National Assembly for further review. The National Assembly ultimately passed the Bill around August 2025, and it later received royal assent, officially becoming law. Boloetse reported that he only became aware of the Bill's enactment on August 17, 2025, obtaining and reviewing an electronic copy the following day. Notably, just four days after the amendment became law, Prime Minister Samuel Matekane presented it at the 45th Southern African Development Community (SADC) Summit in Madagascar, showcasing it as a significant achievement in Lesotho's ongoing commitment to SADC-recommended constitutional reforms, a process that has been underway since 2015.

The Kananelo Boloetse Lesotho constitutional challenge carries profound implications for the future of constitutional governance and citizen participation in the country. At its heart, the case questions the very integrity of the amendment process, particularly when it pertains to fundamental rights enshrined in Chapter II of the Constitution. Boloetse's affidavit underscores that the referendum provision was specifically designed to safeguard the people's sovereignty over Chapter II, ensuring that their freedoms and human dignity could not be altered without their explicit approval. This makes the question of referendum constitutional changes Lesotho a critical point of contention.

A successful outcome for Boloetse and Section Two could establish a vital precedent, reinforcing the necessity of public consultation for any substantial Chapter II Lesotho Constitution amendment. This would significantly impact how future legislative changes affecting core rights are approached. The broader context of Lesotho constitutional reform SADC recommendations also adds weight to this challenge, as it scrutinizes whether the nation's internal processes align with principles of democratic accountability. Furthermore, the personal ordeal faced by Boloetse, who was abducted, assaulted, and threatened in September 2026 for his journalism and human rights work, forcing him to flee Lesotho after reporting the incident to the police, casts a stark light on the environment in which such challenges are pursued.

Lawyers and compliance officers in Lesotho should closely monitor the outcome of Kananelo Boloetse's constitutional challenge, as a successful challenge could invalidate or significantly alter the interpretation and application of the Tenth Constitutional Amendment, particularly concerning fundamental rights and public interest litigation provisions.

Source: Original reporting via AllAfrica Lesotho