…as Law Reform Commission consults stakeholders on review of laws affecting vulnerable groups
Moroke Sekoboto
THE Lesotho Law Reform Commission (LLRC) has exposed a web of colonial-era, archaic, and obsolete laws that actively discriminate against the country’s most vulnerable populations.
This after it undertook extensive research from February to September 2025 to identify laws, policies, and legal practices that may negatively affect vulnerable groups within the society.
The research engaged stakeholders from the government, community ministries, public institutions, civil society organizations, and community representatives.
The outcome of the consultations has been the development of a draft report, highlighting key findings and recommendations for legal reform.
Presenting the draft report at stakeholder consultative workshop this week at Avani Lesotho, LLRC Director Law Revision, Advocate Tšelane Masila, said the findings revealed that multiple active statutes openly violated Section 19 of the Constitution of Lesotho, which guarantees equality and equal protection before the law.
Adv Masila said the report highlighted critical gaps where the state failed to provide reasonable accommodation for marginalized groups, turning basic rights into systemic barriers. He cited the Education Act No. 3 of 2010 completely lacked enforcement mechanisms to compel public schools to provide inclusive infrastructure. This, he said, had left students without access to Braille materials, ramps, or sign language interpreters.
For The Justice Sector he said from arrest to trial, individuals with sensory, psychosocial, or intellectual disabilities faced severe exclusion. He added that lack of communication assistants and sign language interpreters created an immediate risk of false confessions and wrongful arrests.
“The qualitative approach was applied through triangulation, by employing a combination of comparative analysis, literature review, and consultations. These methods were applied in a complementary manner to ensure credibility and validity of the findings. Through desk research and stakeholder consultations, we identified a number of laws that require review,” Adv Masila said.
“Our findings revealed that some laws have become obsolete and are in need of repeal or amendment. Others remain relevant but suffer from inadequate implementation and enforcement. In some instances, legal protections are either incomplete or entirely absent. The laws identified below have been grouped according to the vulnerable and marginalized groups they affect. Under each group, we examine the relevant laws, identify the challenges and gaps within those laws, and provide recommendations for reform.”
On youth programs, he stated that the national youth frameworks failed to include mechanisms for the active inclusion of youth with disabilities, resulting in indirect discrimination.
“The study uses precise legal benchmarks to explain why these laws must be expelled or rewritten. Repeal: the official cancellation or removal of a law because it conflicts with human rights or no longer reflects social values. Archaic: statutes that have failed to adapt to new economic, scientific, or technological developments. Obsolete: laws where the original problem or circumstance has passed, meaning their continued presence in the law books only causes legal uncertainty,” Adv Masila said.
Using a qualitative approach combining comparative analysis, literature reviews, and extensive stakeholder consultations, he said the Commission had mapped out an urgent path toward constitutional supremacy.
On disability, he proposed the replacement of offensive terminology, such as renaming ‘invalid carriage’ to vehicles designed for persons with disabilities and rigidly enforce the Buildings Control Act to guarantee ramps in all public buildings.
“Educational: legally force the Department of Education to provide Braille tools and interpreters across all public schools,” he said.
The marginalized groups that were selected were Persons with disabilities, women, children, the elderly, inmates, ethnic groups, refugees, and LGBTIQA+ Community. Participants, including government officials and civil society, debated the repeal of archaic laws to align with international human rights, particularly focusing on removing offensive terminology and legal capacity restrictions. Key discussions highlighted the need for structural changes in the justice system for persons with disabilities and the necessity of enforcing compliance mechanisms for inclusive policies.
