YOUTH activist Tšolo “Tjeka-Tjeka” Thakeli has approached the High Court seeking to overturn the appointment of Revolution for Prosperity (RFP) Youth League president, Lesala Maphathe, as Director of the Youth Apprenticeship Programme.
In his application filed this week, Mr Thakeli argues that the process was unlawful and violated public service recruitment laws.
The Public Service Commission (PSC), the Secretary of the Public Service Commission, Mr Maphathe and Attorney General Rapelang Motsieloa are cited as the first to fourth respondents respectively.
Mr Thakeli says he became aware of the appointment on or about 7 January 2026 through widespread media reports.
“On or around the 7th January 2026, I became aware of media publications indicating that the 4th Respondent has been appointed as the Director Youth Apprenticeship Programme within the civil service of Lesotho,” he states.
He argues that the appointment attracted significant public interest because Mr Maphathe occupies a senior political role within the ruling party.
“It is important to note that the said appointment became subject of wide media reporting because the 4th Respondent holds a significant role as the leader of the youth league of the leading party in the coalition government, the Revolution for Prosperity.”
Mr Thakeli contends that the position is a public service post and that appointments thereto are governed by the Public Service Act of 2005, the Public Service Regulations of 2008 and government recruitment policies.
“I aver that the said position is tenable within the public service, and appointments thereto are guided by the Public Service Act, the Public Service Regulations and the government policies on recruitments.”
He alleges that no public advertisement was issued inviting qualified candidates to apply for the position, rendering the appointment unlawful.
“I aver that there was never any advertisement that was publicly issued calling for all suitably qualified candidates to apply for a vacant position within the Public Service.”
He says the failure to advertise the post violated mandatory legal requirements and undermined fairness and transparency.
“That on its own, without any justification, is contrary to the prescripts of the laws and regulations governing appointments into the civil service.”
According to Mr Thakeli, the lack of an open recruitment process deprived the state of the opportunity to appoint the best candidate.
“The failure to issue a notice in effect means that there will not be any fair open and competitive process against which a candidate may be selected. This then deprives the Government of Lesotho and the commission itself the opportunity to recruit and appoint the best candidate for the position.”
He further argues that the omission infringed on his constitutional and statutory rights, as well as those of other qualified Basotho.
“I aver that the failure to issue an advert for the vacant position not only violates the prescripts of the public service regulations, but has also denied me and or any other qualifying Mosotho the opportunity to apply for the position and to be subjected to a merit based competitive recruitment.”
Mr Thakeli relies heavily on Section 8 of the Public Service Act, which emphasises merit-based appointments following fair and open competition.
“Section 8 of the Public Service Act states that entry into and advancement within the public service shall be based on merit, namely: ability, qualifications, knowledge, skill and aptitude after a fair and open competition which assures that all citizens of Lesotho receive equal opportunity.”
He also cites regulations requiring the publication of all vacant posts across government departments.
“The regulations at section 21 state that all government departments shall cause to be published a list of all vacant positions within the ministry, and that the said publication shall be made as effectively and as efficiently and as widely as possible so as to reach the entire pool of potential applicants.”
Mr Thakeli argues that failure to comply with these provisions invalidates the entire recruitment process.
“To the extent that the position was never advertised, this mandatory provision of the Law was not complied with and this vitiates the entire recruitment process.”
He further alleges that the legal requirements for senior appointments were ignored, including mandatory competency assessments for posts graded H and above.
“The regulations provide further that for all positions that are at grade H and above, the applicant must undergo a competency assessment which shall be conducted by professional and certified assessors.”
He says such assessments must be formally recorded and retained.
“All competency decisions shall be recorded and kept for a period of five (5) years before they could be destroyed.”
According to Mr Thakeli, only after such assessments should the Human Resources Department submit a shortlist to the PSC for final determination.
“It is following the mandatory competency assessment that the Human Resource Department shall then prepare and submit a shortlist of candidates to the 1st Respondent and the 1st Respondent shall then make a final determination on who the candidate is.”
Mr Thakeli is asking the court to review and set aside the PSC’s decision to appoint Mr Maphathe and to compel the commission to provide reasons for the appointment.
