The Clause 10 challenge can’t pass irrationality and proportionality test

In constitutional and administrative law, there is a potion that deals with judicial remedies, where one party is not satisfied with the ruling against it by a public body. It’s called judicial review.

There are three grounds for judicial review application to succeed.

They are illegality, procedural impropriety and proportionality.

I’m not a lawyer, therefore, I’m not expressing a legal opinion here, but a researched view, as concerned citizen.

Basing one’s argument on Mr Metsing’s view that during the time of Phumaphe, the late Tefo Hashatsi sued the commission and of course Sadc, in the high court of Lesotho and got an order, yet Sadc refused to abide by it,
claiming primacy of the regional body over member states, I dare say:-

In the same breathe irrationality and proportionality could be relied upon by the opposition, who should have, by now, taken the Mahao case to a higher court (Sadc facilitation team) for review.

The court that’s headed by a reasonable adjudicator in the form of Dikgang Moseneke, should quash the recent judgment, which challenges the legality of Clause 10 of the MOU, signed by a coalition of ruling parties and a coalition of opposition parties, and declare it a nullity and of no consequence whatever.

I hope this humble submission shall be found to have elements that may assist the opposition make a break-threw in this political and psychological war.

Remain blessed.

One thought on “The Clause 10 challenge can’t pass irrationality and proportionality test

  1. Another factor at play is the fact that these reforms are sponsored by outside donors who are happy with the arrangement therefore the issue of proportionality and or public policy, to a reasonable adjudicator, shall prevail over demands of few people. They can’t hold our country at ransom for their political convenience.
    Clause 10 is only suspensive condition pending completion of reforms.


Comments are closed.