As we get into the festive season

I wrote this piece two years ago. I still stand the words in it. If I were to write it again I repeat all words in it.

If you like it, feel free to send it further and further, comment on it, let me hear your views.

“The festive season is just around the corner.

This is the time of year when people of all ages will be tasting all sorts of good and bad things, some for the first and last time.

Some will be attending weddings for the first time and come back with mixed feelings about life.

Some will be attending musical bashes for the first time and never have time to attend the second because they would have walked into their death traps and died.

Some will be driving their first cars, rather unfortunately it will be their death traps, because of drunken road users who will just crash into their vehicles and cause fatalities and destruction.

Some will crash their very own vehicles for the very reasons of speeding, drinking and driving, etc, etc.

Some will crash their vehicles out of fatique and exhaustion, after driving long distances without proper rest.

Some will taste a police cell for the first time, then a cell for trialists, then a cell for convicts which will then become their place of permanance thereafter.

Some will taste uprotected sex for the first time, then acquire HIV and AIDS or any other sexually transmitted deseases.

Some will loose their virginity, get pregnant, their men walk out on them, living them in the misery of an uplanned pregnancy, leading to school drop-out and family rejection.

So many bad and good things will be happening as they had been happening in previous years.

Others will hear the gospel of Jesus Christ for the first time and be saved from their sins, then become new creations, brothers and sisters of Jesus of Nazareth.

I pray that you be the one, if not one already, who will submit to authority of Jesus Christ.

May the grace of The Love of God, and Grace of Lord Jesus Christ, and Communion of The Holy Spirit be with you and keep you safe always.

I love you dear.
.

Moruo oa Lesotho o qalella ho bontša matšoao a ho putlama

Tlhokahalo ea mafura a makoloi le mechini e bakileng mela e melele, e hlalosoa ke litsebi tsa moruo le lipolotiki e le ša totobetseng a ho putlama ha moruo oa Lesotho, hoo ha e be e ba naha ena e busoa hantle, tonakholo e ka beng e se e lelekile matona a ’maloa.

Matona ao ba re ke a makala a Moruo, Lihloliloeng, Khoebo le la Lipalangoang, lebaka e le hore a hlotsoe ho bona kotsi e tlang ho putlamisa moruo oa naha le ho etsa maoala a ho phema bothata bona.

Tlhokahalo ena ea mafura e hlalosoa ke litsebi e emisitse mesebetsi e mengata, e meholo le e menyenyane tsietsing e bile e tsitsipantse naha ka ha tšireletso ea naha le polokeho ea bophelo ba sechaba le thepa ea sona e le matsohong a masole le mapolesa a hlokang makoloi ho etsa mesebetsi ea ’ona.

Boemo bona bo simolotse bosiung ba Labobeli la beke ena, ’me bo ntse bo tsoelapele ka tsela e sa bonahaleng e tla ea moriting haufinyane. RK.

Mohau Maphephe

Tlhophisetso e mpe ea tsamaiso ea seboka sa nchafatso ea melao ea Lesotho, e bakile khoao e kholo har’a sechaba, ho ipapisoa le maikutlo a hlahileng mananeong a MOAFRIKA FM a pele le kamor’a seboka seo.

Monghali Khoejane Makhele o llile haholo ka hore o ile a ea petlenngoa litabeng tsa Media ha thahasello le litsebo tsa hae li ne li le moo ho neng ho shebanoe le tšireletso ea naha, hoo a bileng a ea itšohlometsa sehlopheng sa tšireletso, a siea sa media.

Ntate Mohau Maphephe e le monna oa litaba tsa moetlo, o re le eena o makalitsoe ke eona tlhophiso eno e fang batho bo bua ka ho lekana holim’a taba le ha ba bang ba sena kobo ea bohali ho eona.

O re litaba tsa moetlo li hloka beng ba tsona; ba bang ba ka tlatsetsa feela, e seng ho tsoka sephali ho tsona.

Mohlomphehi Mohlophisi e Moholo, o re sehlopheng sa media, ho nkiloe maikutlo a bo-se-oa-holimo bao boholo ba bona e neng e le bapolotiki le bo-mo-sa-tsebeng, ha koteloa a beng ba litsi tsa khaso le phatlalatso a neng a bokelletsoe kahar’a tokomane e bopiloeng ke Misa-Lesotho.

O re hoja maikutlo ao a amoheloa, e ka be e ba polelo ea Plenary One e file media ea Lesotho boemo bo khethehileng tšebetsong ea ho tloha nakong ea ho baloa ha eona ho ea pheletsong ea tšebetso ena e hlalositsoeng ke Motlotlehi e le ea bohlokoahali, ee sechaba sohle sa naha ena se lokelang ho kenya letsoho katlehisong ea eona.

Ka ho toba, o re phatlalatso ea seboka e re, molao oa motheo le tšireletso, li lokela ho qetoa ka khoeli ea bohlano, isao, e leng hore hoa hlaka hore bohle ba lokela ho tsepamisa maikutlo lintlheng tseo, ’me, ho ba nepisa, ho lokolloe Moafrika FM le litsi tsa khaso le phatlalatso tse fanang ka maikutlo a fapaneng le a ’muso ba tsebe ho etsa liqeto tse nepahetseng.

Ka mokhoa o joalo, o re ke motho ea sa tsebeng Lesotho feela kapa moikaketsi, ea ka lumelang hore ntlha ea borobeli ea polelo ea seboka e ka fihleloa kantle ho khaso ea Moafrika fm. Ntlha eo, e bua ka pokeletso ea maikutlo a sechaba se metseng le metsaneng. RK.

Basotho need to rise up to the challenge

Some 200 hundred years ago, Lesotho was invaded by the Boer Trekkers who after a long struggle with Moshoeshoe and Basotho, ended up robbing Basotho of their largest piece of minerals rich territories, the present day Free State and Matatiele, up to Port Shepstone.

About a hundred years ago, people of Indian origin, Sri Lankans, Pakistanis, Indians and Bangladeshis came to Lesotho and started to do business in the northern districts, particularly Butha Buthe.

Those people, have since spread to all corners of Lesotho, owning largest portions of prime business sites in most towns, particularly Butha Buthe, Leribe, Teyateyaneng, Mapoteng, Maputsoe, Maseru and Mafeteng.

Independence saw the introduction of Asians of Chinese origins, particularly, the Taiwanese. They first came as rice farming supervisors, then got into business, the first modern day cement block manufacturer in Lesotho was Mr Lai, from Taiwan.

From there, they got into filling stations and grocery enterprises. They have since taken over the whole of Lesotho, in terms of business. Though they cannot speak Sesotho, fluently, they operate business even in the remotest parts of the kingdom.

Indians, are back, this time around, they sell used Japanese vehicles in every corner and available space in the capital Maseru and they seem to be doing pretty well.

The way I see things, now that Basotho have been ousted from business, it won’t be long before the Chinese and Indians merge to form a political movement that will oust, indigenous Basotho from government.

It happened in Uganda before the rule of Idi Amin, it happened in Peru not so long ago, it is happening in Fuji Islands. Dr Ntsu Mokhehle used to say, Egypt was once a land of black African, but a steady invasion of the Arabic peoples has turned it into a fully fledged Arabic state.

Basotho, men and women let us rise and ensure that if we cannot reverse this situation by this time in 2018 we would have at least stopped it by then.

Lesotho immigration laws and criminal justice systems favours anybody who has money and is bend on putting Basotho under, by any means necessary, through unscrupulous ways.

Tefo Mapesela o batla limilone tse peli tsa Maloti ho Moshoeshoe kapa MOAFRIKA

Bahasi le baphatlalatsi ba litaba ba ntsoeleng holim’a nchafatso ea melao

Letona la Khoebo le mesebetsi e meholo la Lesotho le qositse monghali Khotsang Moshoeshoe ka tšenyo ea lebitso, le mo qosellelitse le MOAFRIKA FM ka le reng Moshoeshoe o mo sentse lebitso a le holim’a eona.

O re tšenyo ena ea lebitso ke ea mohla monghali Moshoeshoe a neng a re koloi ea hae ea mosebetsi e nyanyalitsoe ka tsoekere e sootho, a buisana le e mong ’Mathabo oa MOAFRIKA FM, moeeng.

O bile o re ’Mathabo eo, o ile a thiba monghali Moshoeshoe eena a re ore a se behe litaba joalo, eena a re o hlile o cho joalo, ea tlosang a mo qose. RK.Tsebo Matšasa 63988905Bahasi ba litaba le baphatlatsi ba tsona ba Lesotho ba ntsoeleng hore ho na le melao e mengata e ba setisang ho sebeletsa bamameli le babali ba naha ena ka bolokolohi, e lokelang ho hlakoloa libukeng tsa melao tsa naha ena.Kopanong ea Labone lena, e neng e hlophisitsoe ke Misa Lesotho, moo setsebi sa eona neng se phatlalatsa tlaleho ea liphuputso tsa sona ho ne ho le teng baemeli ba litsi tsa khaso le tsa phatlalatso tse ikemetseng le tsa kereke, ’moho le litho tsa komiti ea media ea bohanyetsi, tokisong ea melao ea naha ena.Qetellong ea tlaleho, bohle ba bile le sebaka se lekanang ho botsa le ho matlafatsa tlaleho eo, ’me qetellong bohle ba tloha ba thabile, ba bile ba re e ka ho ka ba le menyetla ea likopano tse joalo ka eo, khafetsa; mofuputsi oa Misa-Lesotho eena a tšepisa hore o tla hapella makutlo a phutheho tokomaneng ea mapomelo. Rk.

Content Attribution Policy Global Freedom of Expression is an academic initiative

Content Attribution Policy Global Freedom of Expression is an academic initiative and therefore, we encourage you to share and republish excerpts of our content so long as they are not used for commercial purposes and you respect the following policy:

•Attribute Columbia Global Freedom of Expression as the source.

•Link to the original URL of the specific case analysis, publication, update, blog or landing page of the down loadable content you are referencing. Attribution, copyright, and license information for media used by Global Freedom of Expression is available on our Credits page. Case Analysis Case Summary and Outcome The Fourth Section of the European Court of Human Rights concluded that the United Kingdom had not failed its positive obligations in relation to the right to privacy. The complaint had been brought by an individual who had recovered monetary compensation from the domestic courts for having had his privacy infringed by a newspaper article concerning sexual activities in which he had engaged in private. The complainant maintained that, in order to adequately protect privacy, the U.K. had a duty to require publishers to notify subjects before the publishing of articles concerning their private life, in order to afford them the opportunity to request an injunction before publication. The Court reasoned that, in light of its potential “chilling effect” on freedom of expression, its questionable effectiveness and the wide margin of appreciation afforded to individual Members, States could not be said to have an obligation to impose such a pre-notification requirement. Facts On March 30, 2008, the “News of the World”, which had an average circulation of over 3 million copies, published an article concerning the sexual activities of former Formula 1 motor racing chief Max Mosley. The article was headed “F1 boss has sick Nazi orgy with 5 hookers” and opened with the sentence “Formula 1 motor racing chief Max Mosley is today exposed as a secret sadomasochistic sex pervert”. The article was accompanied by still photographs taken from video footage that had been secretly recorded by one of the participants in the sexual activities who had been paid in advance to record the activities. Still images and an edited extract of the video were also made available on the website of the newspaper after which they were also reproduced elsewhere on the internet. Later on the same day of the publication, Mosley’s attorneys complained to the newspaper and on the following day the newspaper voluntarily removed the video footage and agreed not to show it again without giving 24 hours’ notice. However, the footage had already been viewed over 1.4. million times before its removal. On April 4, 2008 Mosley initiated legal proceedings against the newspaper claiming damages for breach of confidence and invasion of privacy. He also complained about the characterization of his activities as Nazi role-play and sought an injunction to restrain the newspaper from making the footage available again. On April 9, 2008 High Court Judge Mr. Justice Eady refused to grant the injunction. While he recognized that there was “no legitimate element of public interest which would be served by the additional disclosure of the edited footage” he considered that an injunction would have not served any practical purpose given the footage was already widely available elsewhere on the internet. He reasoned that “Even though an order may be desirable for the protection of privacy, and may be made in accordance with the principles currently being applied by the courts, there may come a point where it would simply serve no useful purpose” and that there was “no point in barring the News of the World from showing what is already available” On July 24, 2008 the High Court issued its judgment in the privacy proceedings. Judge Eady concluded that there was no element linking Mr. Mosley’s sexual activities with Nazi role-play noting that: “When Mr Myler [the editor] was taken at length through dozens of photographs, some of which he had seen prior to publication, he had to admit in the witness box that there were no Nazi indicia and he could, of course, point to nothing which would justify the suggestion of ‘mocking’ concentration camp victims. That conclusion could, and should, have been reached before publication. I consider that this willingness to believe in the Nazi element and the mocking of Holocaust victims was not based on enquiries or analysis consistent with ‘responsible journalism”. The Judge also acknowledged that the reason the newspaper did not notify Mr. Mosley before the publication of the article was “to avoid the possibility of an interlocutory injunction”. However, he also considered that “it would not be right to equate such tactics with deliberately or recklessly committing a wrong”. The judge declined to award exemplary damages and limited the damages available to a compensatory award reasoning that, as damages awarded for the purpose of deterrence would have to account for the means of the relevant defendant, an amount sufficient to deter News of the World would have to be so large that it would fail the test of proportionality and risk a “chilling effect” on freedom of expression. The Judge also noted that “whereas reputation can be vindicated by an award of damages, in the sense that the claimant can be restored to the esteem in which he was previously held, that is not possible where embarrassing personal information has been released for general publication. As the media are well aware, once privacy has been infringed, the damage is done and the embarrassment is only augmented by pursuing a court action. Thus, if journalists successfully avoid the grant of an interlocutory injunction, they can usually relax in the knowledge that intrusive coverage of someone’s sex life will carry no adverse consequences for them”. Despite this, he considered that “that the only realistic course is to select a figure which marks the fact that an unlawful intrusion has taken place while affording some degree of solatium to the injured party”. Following this reasoning, he awarded Mr. Mosley GBP60,000.00 in damages and GBP420,000.00 in costs and granted a final injunction. Despite receiving this award, Mr. Mosley considered that the U.K had failed its duty to protect his privacy by not imposing on the publishers a requirement that subjects be notified before an article concerning their private life is published. Because of this, he brought an application before the European Court of Human Rights where the Fourth Section issued a decision on May 10, 2011. Decision Overview The issue for the Fourth Section of the European Court of Human Rights to decide was whether States had an obligation under Article 8 of the ECHR to require publishers to notify subjects before an article concerning their private life was published. Max Mosley (the applicant) argued that, in order to protect his privacy, the U.K. “had an obligation to enable him to apply for an injunction by requiring that he be notified prior to publication of an article which interfered with his private life”. He further argued: (1) that the lack of a prior notification requirement encouraged editors not to notify subjects as subjects would be unlikely to wish to pursue litigation after publication due to fear of attracting further attention to the embarrassing or damaging information; (2) that a system where the balancing between the rights to freedom of expression and to private life only took place after publication did not afford sufficient protection to privacy as, once lost, privacy could not be regained; (3) that notification before publishing was one of the requirements of responsible journalism; (4) that States had a margin of appreciation regarding the precise scope and mechanics of a pre-notification system but not as to whether to require notification or not; and (5) that the practical difficulties States could face in enforcing a prior-notification system and developing an adequate system of exceptions for it could not justify not establishing one. The government of the U.K., on its part, argued that its positive obligation to protect the applicant´s privacy did not require it to subject publishers to a legally binding prior-notification requirement. It further argued: (1) that an unavoidable consequence of a prior-notification requirement would be an increase in the number of interim injunctions granted in detriment of freedom of expression; (2) that compulsory notification would be contrary to the internationally accepted standards set by the Council of Europe; (3) that there were insuperable difficulties for imposing a legal pre-notification requirement including in defining the scope of the obligation, the categories of press and media that would be subjected to it, and the cases in a which a public interest exception would apply. The ECtHR began its analysis by acknowledging that the case before it had “resulted in a flagrant and unjustified invasion of the applicant’s private life”. The Court then preceded to review its doctrine concerning the “margin of appreciation” afforded to States in the discharging of their positive obligations under Article 8 of the ECHR. Similarly, the Court reviewed its case-law on freedom of expression highlighting that: “editorial discretion is not unbounded. The press must not overstep the bounds set for, among other things, ‘the protection of … the rights of others’, including the requirements of acting in good faith and on an accurate factual basis and of providing ‘reliable and precise’ information in accordance with the ethics of journalism” and that a less robust protection of freedom of expression applies to “to press reports concentrating on sensational and, at times, lurid news, intended to titillate and entertain, which are aimed at satisfying the curiosity of a particular readership regarding aspects of a person’s strictly private life”. The Court also recalled that it “must exercise the utmost caution where measures taken or sanctions imposed by the national authorities are such as to dissuade the press from taking part in the discussion of matters of legitimate public concern” and that “while Article 10 does not prohibit the imposition of prior restraints on publication, the dangers inherent in prior restraints are such that they call for the most careful scrutiny on the part of the Court”. However the Court also noted that “prior restraints may be more readily justified in cases which demonstrate no pressing need for immediate publication and in which there is no obvious contribution to a debate of general public interest.” The Court then proceeded to note that, while the U.K had not implemented the prior-notification requirement demanded by the applicant, it had adopted a number of other measures for the protection of the right to privacy of persons on its territory. The Court also observed that “in its examination to date of the measures in place at domestic level to protect Article 8 rights in the context of freedom of expression, it has implicitly accepted that ex post facto damages provide an adequate remedy for violations of Article 8 rights arising from the publication by a newspaper of private information”. Finally, the Court stated that its decision on the applicant’s petition would have implications for freedom of expression that would not be “limited to the sensationalist reporting at issue in this case but extend to political reporting and serious investigative journalism”. After these preliminary considerations the Court proceeded to conclude that, the despite the U.K. Government’s contentions, it would be possible to define with sufficient clarity which actors would be subjected to the prior notification requirement and in which cases the requirement would apply. However, the Court also concluded that a pre-notification obligation would require, as accepted by both parties, some form of “public interest” exception. In the view of the Court, “in order to prevent a serious chilling effect on freedom of expression, a reasonable belief that there was a ‘public interest’ at stake would have to be sufficient to justify non-notification, even if it were subsequently held that no such ‘public interest’ arose”. The Court also considered that the “public interest” exception would have to be broad and not limited to specific cases such as the a risk of destruction of evidence because “a narrowly defined public interest exception would increase the chilling effect of any pre-notification duty”. In this relation, the Court noted that it was possible that, even if the prior-notification requirement had been in place before the publishing of the article concerning the applicant, the newspaper could have opted not to notify the applicant under the public interest exception. The Court also considered that, in order to really deter newspapers, a regulatory or civil fine would have to be set at a punitively high level otherwise newspapers like the News of the World would simply opt to incur an ex post facto fine even if there was a legal prior notification requirement. According to the Court, while punitive fines or criminal sanctions could be effective in ensuring compliance with the pre-notification requirement these would run the risk of being incompatible with the requirements of freedom of expression. The Court found itself “satisfied that the threat of criminal sanctions or punitive fines would create a chilling effect which would be felt in the spheres of political reporting and investigative journalism, both of which attract a high level of protection under the Convention”. In light of the all of the above and while acknowledging the conduct of the newspaper in the applicant’s case was open to severe criticism, the Court concluded that “having regard to the chilling effect to which a pre-notification requirement risks giving rise, to the significant doubts as to the effectiveness of any pre-notification requirement and to the wide margin of appreciation in this area, [sic] Article 8 does not require a legally binding pre-notification requirement”. Thus, the Court ruled that the U.K. had not violated its obligations under Article 8 of ECHR. Decision Direction Global Perspective Case Significance Official Case Documents Have comments? Let us know if you notice errors or if the case analysis needs revision.

Send Feedback

THE DECISION OF THE FREE STATE GOVERNMENT TO HONOUR CHIEF LEABUA JONATHAN IS INSENSITIVE; IRRESPONSIBLE AND AN INSULT TO THE PEOPLE OF LESOTHO AND SOUTH AFRICA

Lesotho—The Congress of the People (COPE) in the Free State is dismayed at how the ANC Government is determined to use any avenue to siphon money out of the Provincial Treasury so that it can be stolen by politicians. The decision of the Free State government to have a sequence of events to honour the late Chief Leabua Jonathan who was a dictator and murderer of Basotho is disgusting, irresponsible, insensitive and an insult to the people of South Africa and Lesotho.

The decision of Mathabo Leeto; MEC of Sports, Arts and Culture in the Free State to spend millions of rands to erect a statue of Leabua Jonathan; rename Medfontein building after him; name the road between Ladybrand and Maseru after him; launching of the special blanket for him is nothing but a deliberate action to swindle money out of the Free State treasury.

Apart from Leabua Jonathan not deserving to be honoured in any way, the distortion that he was a friend of Oliver Tambo is the worst distortion of history and exposes the ignorance of the present crop of African National Congress leadership. The clamour of the ANC to be seen clinging to erstwhile dictators is indicative of their desire hence their consistent attack on the constitution.

Chief Leabua Jonathan staged a coup in 1970 after losing power and unleashed the cruelest violence on the Basotho people. He murdered and detained anybody he perceived as his opposition. He treated those opposed to him as his enemies. He ruled by decree until he was deposed. COPE understand and accept the decision of Basotho for having renamed Leabua International Airport and Leabua Highway into Moshoeshoe 1 International Airport and Main North 1 respectively after he was removed.

COPE Free State does not understand why the African National Congress would waste millions of Rands to honour a dictator and murderer who have been dishonoured in his own country. COPE challenges the ANC National and Provincial leadership to a public debate on this issue since the public was never consulted.

It is mindboggling that the government which has failed to deliver basic services to its people would spend so much money of the taxpayer to honour a dictator and murderer and thereby insult Basotho.

Free State has a lot of heroes and heroines who died for this freedom but the African National Congress has decided that they must just be ignored because it is easy to steal money through Leabua Jonathan than through these heroes and heroines of the struggle. To name just one, Steve Bogacu was murdered during daylight in Ficksburg and his killers were never brought to book but the ANC is more committed to honour a murderous dictator and insult the Basotho.

It is high time that South Africans in general but Free Staters in particular should use their votes properly next year. It’s high time that the looters should be removed from the purse of the nation. END –

Papi Kganare
COPE FREE STATE PROVINCIAL CHAIRPERSON: 073 282 6616

Mapolesa a ntlokholo a hloloa ho namolela mohlolohali oa Lechalaba

Lesotho—Nkhono Nthatisi Lechalaba o re ba ntse ba e-s’o fumane thuso khahlanong le lelapa le ba sotlang, e le bahlolohali ba Paul Lechalaba hoo eena a seng a bile a phela kamor’a sehlahla, a balehisitse bophelo ba hae, ’me ha a tsebe hore na bana le litloholo tsa hae ba itšuntse kae.

O re akhente ea hae e ntse e le sieo ka mabaka a lelapa la habo eona, e neng e lokela ho ba thusa ho fumana taelo e ncha ea lekhotla e laelang mapolesa ho tšoara bahlorisi ba bona, tlas’a tlolo ea molao ea nyeliso ea litaelo tsa lekhotla.

Nkho o re, ho ena le hore mapolesa a tšoare bahlorisi ba bona, a batla ho ba kopanya, ba buisane, e leng see a sa se lumeleng, ka le reng eena o batla hore ho phethoe taelo ea lekhotla le phahameng, ka lehlakoreng le leng, mapolesa a tšoare a be a qose batho ba mo senyelitseng thepa, ba mo tšosa ka lefu ba ba ba fosa setloholo sa hae ka sethunya. RK.

Motse oa Qoaling Ha Seoli o na le matšoao a mollo o runyang fatše

Lesotho—Sechaba sa Qoaling Ha Seoli se phatlalalitse mokhosing oa ka Labohlano le Labotšelela tsena hore se bona molora o nyolohang fatše, o phatlolang polasetiki ha o kentsoe kahar’a eona. Ba re o na le monkho o sa tloaelehang oa ho cha. Tlaleho e fanoe ke ’Mantsoaki Mohai.

Momameli e mong o itse ntho e joalo e kile ea etsahala Qachaseneke, lehlakoreng le haufi le moeli oa Matatiele kantle ho metse ha e mong eena a itse o kile a e bona Matelile moo e neng e je masimo.

Ntate Mohau Maphephe o itse sebaka sa Thaba Bosiu Ha Ntsi le sona se kile sa e-ba le mollo o nyolong ka tlas’a lefatše, oa hotetsa mohlanka o neng o le moo ha sebaka seo se tla bitsoa Mohlaka oa Tuka.

Mohlomphehi Mohlolphisi e Moholo o elelitse sechaba sa Ha Seoli hore se phothome mok’hanselara oa sona, ka ha ho ka etsahala hore e be ntho eo ke volcano, eena o tla kopana le Lekhotla la toropo le tlang ho kopana le litsebi tsa ’muso kapa tsa junifesithi ea sechaba ho tla thusetsa.

O itse ba lokela ho akofela boemo boo hobane haeba ba ba fela ba lutse holim’a volcano, mohla e phahlohang, ba tla hloka sekoti sa ho ipata, e tla ba metselletsa le sohle see ba nang le sona, matlo, masaka, lihoko le makoloi. RK.

 

 

 

Basotho ba lumellana ka maikutlo tabeng ea nchafatso ea melao ea Lesotho

Lesotho— Bakhethi ba Basotho ba lumellana ka maikutlo tabeng ea hore nchafatso ea melao ea naha ena e tinkelletse botlotlehi, moetlo, bokreste, puso ea sechaba lka sechaba le phenyo ea bofuma.

 Ba bua Pusong ea Sechaba ka Sechaba, ka Labotšelela lena, ba bile ntsoeleng hore molao oa motheo ha ea lokela ho ba tokomane ea sepheo se se tle feela, empa o lokela ho sebeliseha phethahatsong ea tse supjoang ke oona molemong oa sechaba.

 Lintlha tse tharo tse tla beng li le ncha ha li ka kenella li hlalosoa li ipapisa le boemo boemo boo Lesotho le neng le le bona pele ho boipuso, e leng moetlo o hapellang Borena bo Boholo le lebollo.

 Ka mokhoa o joalo ba re Bokreste bo ne bo le sehlohlolong sa puso ho tlona nakong ea Moshoeshoe, e leng eena ea neng a bo tlise Lesotho ho tla mo thusa ntlafatsong ea bophelo ba sechaba sa hae, ’me ba fela ba mo fa leseli la thuto ea sekhooa.

 Es phenyo ea bofuma e lokelang ho tinketsoa molaong oa motheo, ba re e ka nkoa molaong oa Brasil, ea ba e se e behoa ka tsela e ka etsang hore e lumellane le mofuta oa moruo oa naha ena o kang oa liphoofolo, temo, lihloliloeng le sechaba sa Lesotho.

 Morena Ramokhali Shale o bile a supa lesobana lee litho tsa sechaba li ka kenang kahar’a nchafatso ena ka lona, a ba a re monghali Khoejane Makhele a tlohele ho lla o se a le kahare le ha e ba ha ba e-s’o mo bolelle ba lokelang ho etsa joalo. RK.