…as university leadership crisis deepens
Moorosi Tsiane
THE leadership crisis engulfing the National University of Lesotho (NUL) took another dramatic turn on Friday when suspended Pro-Vice Chancellor, Professor (Prof) Kananelo Mosito, was blocked from entering the university campus.
This despite him insisting that a Court of Appeal judgment automatically elevated him to Acting Vice-Chancellor following the expiry of Professor Olusola Isaac Fajana’s contract.
The latest confrontation comes against the backdrop of an interim order issued by the Court of Appeal’s Justice Phillip Musonda in June 2026.
The order effectively implied that Prof Mosito should be the acting Vice Chancellor pending litigation over the appointment of a substantive Vice-Chancellor.
Prof Mosito was suspended from NUL on 22 April 2026 after he challenged the university’s recruitment process for the appointment of a new Vice-Chancellor.
He was accused of “rendering the university ungovernable in pursuit of personal interests which conflict with the best interests of the university that he should be protecting”. His case challenging the suspension is still pending before the Labour Court while his case challenging the circumstances surrounding the recruitment of Prof Fajana’s successor is pending before the Court of Appeal.
The Council petitioned the Court of Appeal seeking the recusal of High Court judges arguing that Prof Mosito served as a colleague to High Court judges whilst he was also employed by NUL.
The university argued that Prof Mosito’s dual role created circumstances capable of giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of institutional bias.
However, the High Court’s Justice Molefi Makara dismissed both objections saying judges were impartial, prompting the university to appeal.
Speaking to the Sunday Express on Friday, Prof Mosito maintained that the expiry of Prof Fajana’s contract on 31 July 2026, automatically elevated him to the position of Acting Vice-Chancellor in terms of a Court of Appeal order.
Prof Fajana had assumed office on 2 August 2021, under a five-year contract that expired on 31 July 2026.
Justice Musonda ruled that under the NUL Act, the Pro-Vice Chancellor should assume the role of Acting Vice-Chancellor once the office of Vice Chancellor became vacant. This effectively catapulted Prof Mosito to the role of Acting Vice Chancellor while the courts wait to finalise legal challenges surrounding the recruitment process initiated by the NUL Council.
Justice Musonda has also halted the recruitment and appointment process for a new Vice-Chancellor until the pending legal disputes are concluded.
In his ruling, Justice Musonda stated:
“The said appeals shall be enrolled for hearing during the next ordinary session of this Court. The proceedings presently pending before the High Court under CIV/APN/042/2026 are hereby stayed pending the final determination of the appeals under C OF A (CIV) NO 24/2026 and C OF A (CIV) NO 25/2026.
“The purported ongoing recruitment, selection and appointment process for the office of Vice-Chancellor of the National University of Lesotho, including all steps taken pursuant thereto, is hereby stayed pending the final determination of the substantive proceedings before the High Court.
“For the avoidance of doubt and to preserve institutional continuity and ensure fidelity to the statutory scheme established by the National University of Lesotho Order, 1992, it is hereby declared that, upon the occurrence of a vacancy in the office of Vice-Chancellor on 31 July 2026, section 17(4) of the Order shall take effect according to its terms. Accordingly, the Pro-Vice-Chancellor shall, by operation of law and without the necessity for any further decision, immediately assume and exercise all the powers, functions and duties of the office of Vice-Chancellor in an acting capacity until a substantive Vice-Chancellor has been lawfully appointed in accordance with the Order.
“No person, authority or organ of the University shall take, authorise, facilitate or purport to take any action inconsistent with, or calculated directly or indirectly to circumvent, frustrate, defeat or undermine, the operation of section 17(4) of the Order or the assumption of office by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor thereunder,” Justice Musonda ruled.
Justice Musonda, however, stressed that his ruling was merely intended to preserve the situation pending final determination of the substantive disputes.
“For the further avoidance of doubt, nothing in this judgment constitutes a final determination upon the legality or otherwise of the impugned recruitment process, the jurisdictional disputes presently pending before this Court, or the substantive legality challenge before the High Court. The present orders are purely interlocutory and preservative, and are directed solely towards maintaining institutional legality, continuity and the efficacy of pending judicial proceedings.”
Armed with that ruling, Prof Mosito reported for duty on Friday morning, believing he was legally entitled to occupy the Vice-Chancellor’s office.
Instead, he was stopped at the university gates by security personnel.
According to Prof Mosito, the Head of Security, one Mr Makoetlane, refused to grant him access to the campus.
Prof Mosito described the incident as a direct violation of the Court of Appeal’s order.
“I was refused entry upon my arrival by security and the University’s Director of Security, Mr Makoetlane, who argued that he had not been informed that I would be coming to work. He also said he was unaware of a court order directing that I take over once Prof Fajana left.
“We therefore asked him to call the acting Registrar, Dr Lipalesa Mathe, as the one who receives the university correspondences, and she indeed came together with the Director Legal, Advocate (Adv) Mamello Makau. I tried to raise my case with them, but still, they refused me entry within the premises,” said Prof Mosito.
Unable to gain access, Prof Mosito said he nevertheless proceeded to formally assume office remotely.
“Fortunately, most of my work is done digitally, so I have issued an assumption of duty notice to the relevant stakeholders because I had to align with the court order while the matter is being dealt with amicably,” he said.
He further warned that legal consequences would follow.
“They will have to face contempt of court charges because their acts are contemptuous to the Court of Appeal order.”
Prof Mosito said the Deputy Sheriff of the Court of Appeal was already preparing contempt proceedings against Mr Makoetlane, Dr Mathe and Adv Makau.
Despite the tense confrontation, Prof Mosito emphasised that the situation remained peaceful.
“The matter was discussed harmoniously by all the parties involved, without any violence. When I was denied entry, I did not just use force to try and force my way in, but rather, I resorted to trying to solve the matter amicably because that is what we learned people do.”
Hours later, the NUL Council issued a lengthy statement disputing Prof Mosito’s interpretation of the Court of Appeal judgment.
The Council confirmed that Prof Mosito had attempted to take over the university’s leadership.
“The Council of National University of Lesotho (NUL) wishes to inform staff, students, alumni, partners and all stakeholders of developments that occurred on campus today, Friday, 31 July 2026, involving the suspended Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Associate Professor Kananelo Mosito.
“Earlier today, the suspended Pro-Vice-Chancellor presented himself at the University around 11.30 am and asserted that a judgment of the Court of Appeal of 5 June 2026 had installed him as Acting Vice-Chancellor with effect from today, 31 July 2026.
“He further alleged that the tenure of the substantive Vice-Chancellor had automatically come to an end today. Consequently, he alleged that his suspension had lapsed with the end of the contract of the substantive Vice-Chancellor.
“Acting on that interpretation, he demanded access to his office and sought to assume executive authority within the University with immediate effect.
“The Pro-Vice Chancellor has adopted this interpretation in the face of ongoing litigation in the Labour Court, in which he has challenged his suspension by the University. The case remains pending before the Labour Court.”
The Council insisted that Prof Mosito had no authority to declare himself Acting Vice-Chancellor.
“The University categorically rejects this interpretation. The power to appoint any officer of the University, whether substantive or acting, lies with the University’s Council, and not the Courts.
“The University’s considered legal position is that the judgment of the Court of Appeal provides for transitional leadership to be implemented in accordance with the University’s governing laws, statutes and established governance structures. The judgment does not appoint any named individual to the office of Acting Vice-Chancellor.”
The Council further argued that the Court of Appeal ruling did not invalidate the disciplinary action that had resulted in Prof Mosito’s suspension.
“Furthermore, the judgement does not invalidate disciplinary measures lawfully instituted against the Pro-Vice Chancellor. Any implementation of the judgment must therefore occur strictly within the framework of the University’s legal and governance instruments.
“Accordingly, the suspension of the Pro-Vice-Chancellor remains in force unless and until it is lawfully varied or set aside through the appropriate legal or institutional processes. No unilateral declaration by the affected employee can alter that legal position.”
Responding directly to Prof Mosito’s accusations of contempt, the Council maintained that university officials acted lawfully in denying him access.
“The allegation that the University is acting unlawfully by denying the suspended Pro-Vice-Chancellor access to University premises and offices is without merit. The University has acted, and will continue to act, in accordance with the law, its governing instruments and the advice it has received. It remains under a duty to preserve institutional order, protect University property and ensure that all administrative actions are undertaken lawfully and without disruption.”
The Council accused Prof Mosito of undermining institutional governance.
“The University is particularly concerned by the conduct displayed today by the suspended Pro-Vice-Chancellor. Members of the University’s senior leadership are expected to exemplify respect for institutional processes, the rule of law and the governance structures they are entrusted to uphold.
“Publicly asserting executive authority on the basis of a disputed interpretation of a court judgment, while disciplinary proceedings and institutional processes remain extant, is inconsistent with those standards and has the potential to create unnecessary confusion, instability and reputational harm.”
In one of the strongest allegations contained in the statement, the Council accused Prof Mosito of exploiting his judicial office.
“The University is further concerned that the suspended Pro-Vice-Chancellor is abusing his concurrent position as the President of the Court of Appeal. This dual role of the Pro-Vice-Chancellor creates a major structural conflict of interest that is compounded by a sense of impunity on his part.
“This situation has a huge potential of placing the University and the Judiciary in disrepute in the eyes of the public. The University wishes to remind all members of its community that court judgments must be implemented faithfully and in their proper legal context. They are not to be selectively interpreted or invoked to advance self-serving personal interests or individual claims to office.
“The implementation of judicial decisions affecting the governance of the University is the responsibility of the University’s duly constituted authorities acting within the law.”
The Council concluded by assuring staff, students and stakeholders that university operations remained unaffected despite the latest showdown.
“Staff, students and stakeholders are therefore advised that the University’s governance and administrative operations continue uninterrupted. All official communications regarding leadership, governance and institutional decisions will be issued only through authorised University channels.
“The University remains firmly committed to the rule of law, institutional integrity and good governance. It will continue to take all lawful measures necessary to protect the stability of the institution while ensuring full compliance with the Court of Appeal judgment and the University’s governing legal framework.”
The NUL Council has taken umbrage with cases involving Prof Mosito being heard by other local judges, who are all effectively his juniors. In this case, the disputed Court of Appeal interdict was issued by Judge Musonda, who sits with Prof Mosito on the same court. Even though Justice Musonda was at pains to explain that his interdict was a temporary measure not dealing with the merits, critics see it otherwise. They believe justice can only be seen to be done if all cases involving Prof Mosito are dealt with by foreign judges, a proposition the High Court has already rebuffed.
Post Views: 4,066
