THE involvement of the military in civilian law enforcement raises significant human rights concerns, particularly regarding the use of force and the treatment of suspects.
The country has been witnessing the loss of lives at the hands of Lesotho Defence Force (LDF) members who allegedly torture civilians suspected of owning illegal firearms.
Just this past week, the LDF issued a statement confirming that it had killed two civilians during the army's "Operation Hard Fist" in Khokhoba, Berea. The two were suspected of keeping illegal firearms.
Furthermore, there has been a spike in lawsuits filed against the army commander, Lieutenant General Mojalefa Letsoela, over the allegations of civilians brutalised and detained by soldiers outside the perimeters of the law.
This year alone, the Lesotho Defence Force (LDF) has been slapped with civil claims amounting to almost M50 million by civilians claiming torture at the hands of the soldiers.
Human rights advocates have expressed concerns over the increasing number of lawsuits against the LDF by civilians who were allegedly arrested, detained, and tortured by the army. They assert that the army must act within the parameters of the rule of law, as allowing the army to arrest, detain, and torture civilians is self-defeating.
Human rights defender and Master of Human Rights Law candidate at the University of the Free State, Lepeli Moeketsi, said these actions by the military, as evidenced by the numerous lawsuits, were worrying and negatively affected the country's commitments under international human rights law.
Advocate Moeketsi stated that the government could not fight crime with crime saying was a recipe for disaster.
"Torturing suspects and other barbaric tactics deployed in the name of curbing crime is a highly simplistic approach to crime prevention. Warring against crime while complying with international human rights law obligations is desirable for any functioning state," Adv Moeketsi said.
He said the role of leading crime prevention should be reserved for the police, not the army.
"The army should assist where required. If there are capacity gaps within the police, the government must provide capacity-building resources essential for curbing high levels of crime," he said.
He acknowledged that section 5 of the LDF Act of 1996 allowed for the employment of the LDF in the maintenance of law and order and crime prevention, but it did not justify the army arresting and brutalising civilians.
"In addition, this provision is not to be comprehended in isolation, it must be understood in a broader context of Lesotho's obligations under international human rights law to promote, respect and protect the rights of the people within its territory and other salient democratic principles such as the principle of the rule of law," Adv Moeketsi said.
He said unlike the army, the police enjoyed a constitutional mandate under section 147 of the Constitution to maintain law and order in Lesotho.
"The role of the LDF in the fight against crime is secondary and must be strictly regulated to safeguard fundamental civil liberties. The role must be that of support or assistance to police where there is such need," he added.
"Their orientation is also different; the role of the army is to safeguard national security and to protect the interests of the state and its inhabitants in times of crisis through the use of force. While police, through their training, are skilled and equipped to handle suspects while at the same time being cognisant of existing civil liberties.
"The unnecessary and arbitrary use of arrest and pre-trial detention, as in this context of LDF, is a major factor for serious human rights violations. It also feeds corruption, increases the risk of torture, inhumane and degrading treatment. It further has significant negative socio-economic impacts on suspects, their families and communities.
He added: "I understand the army's zeal to be involved in the fight against crime. However, they must at all costs do so within the parameters of the rule of law and respect and protection of human rights."
"Under which law can a civilian be arrested and detained at a military detention facility? What crime can a civilian commit under the LDF Act? Under which law, regional, international or local is torture permitted?" he asked rhetorically.
Sharing similar sentiments, human rights advocates, Section 2, said the Police Service Act of 1998 stated that the police were primarily responsible for upholding the law, preserving peace, and handling criminal matters.
Section 2's secretary general, Tjatjapa Sekali, said while the LDF could assist in the maintenance of law and order, they should ideally work in coordination with the police rather than act independently.
According to Mr Sekali, the military is trained for combat, not for policing, which can lead to excessive use of force and violations of human rights.
He said any deployment of the military in civilian matters should be closely monitored, with strict adherence to legal standards and oversight mechanisms to prevent abuse.
"It is never justifiable to beat suspects, regardless of the circumstances. The use of excessive force and torture is a violation of human rights and undermines the rule of law.
"Effective crime-solving measures should be based on lawful and ethical methods that respect the rights of individuals. Resorting to violence and abuse not only harms individuals but also erodes public trust in the authorities and can lead to further unrest and disorder," Mr Sekali said.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
SECTION 2 has previously raised concerns about the escalating crime paralysing the nation, especially rampant killings. But the organization insists crime should be fought within the law.
Mr Sekali said any involvement of the LDF in civilian matters should be clearly authorised by the Prime Minister with transparent reasons justifying such involvement.
"There should be clear coordination between the military and police to respect the distinct roles of each force. Independent oversight mechanisms should be established to monitor the actions of both the military and police.
"We believe transparency can help build trust and prevent misunderstandings. In the medium to long run, the government should invest in strengthening the police force's capacity to handle crime effectively, including better training, availing resources, and community engagement so that reliance on the military is minimized or eliminated altogether."
Another human rights lawyer, Mabela Lehloenya, said arrests of suspects was the sole responsibility of the police not the army.
"The army usually hides behind 'special operations' which they say are meant to assist in the maintenance of law and order and in the process violate people's rights through torture. They cannot be seen to act independently in combatting crime. They should work in coordination with the police," Adv Lehloenya said.
