Introduction
On 2nd February 2026, during the ceremonial opening of the High Court of Lesotho, Chief Justice Sakoane Sakoane delivered a poignant statement on the persistent backlog of cases plaguing the nation’s judicial system. He remarked, “The story of backlog of cases does not end. It speaks to the reality that increasing access to courts means more and not less cases. As long as society fails to put in place alternative dispute resolution institutions and make courts its first preference, backlogs are here to stay. The only way to cope with this labour of Sisyphus [is] by increasing number of judicial officers.” This statement highlights a critical challenge within Lesotho’s justice system, one inherited from colonial structures, and underscores the systemic pressures courts face due to rising caseloads and limited resources. Chief Justice Sakoane’s reference to the “labour of Sisyphus” vividly captures the seemingly endless and arduous nature of addressing this issue.
This essay critically examines Chief Justice Sakoane’s assertion, focusing on the root causes of case backlogs in Lesotho’s colonially bequeathed judicial framework. It explores whether increasing the number of judicial officers, as suggested, offers a sustainable solution, and investigates the potential role of indigenous African justice systems as alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms to alleviate this burden. The discussion will assess the compatibility of traditional systems with modern legal structures, their strengths and limitations, and their capacity to address the “monstrosity” of backlogs. Through this analysis, the essay aims to contribute to a broader understanding of how hybrid legal approaches might offer pragmatic solutions to systemic judicial challenges in post-colonial African contexts like Lesotho.
The Backlog Crisis in Lesotho’s Judicial System
The backlog of cases in Lesotho’s courts represents a chronic and multifaceted problem, rooted in the historical imposition of a colonial legal system that was often ill-suited to the socio-cultural realities of the Basotho people. Historically, Lesotho’s legal framework was shaped under British colonial rule, which introduced a formal, adversarial court system prioritising written law over customary practices (Poulter, 1976). While this system aimed to standardise justice delivery, it arguably marginalised indigenous mechanisms that had long served as effective means of dispute resolution in Basotho communities.
Chief Justice Sakoane’s observation that increasing access to courts results in more cases is well-founded. As legal awareness and access to justice initiatives expand, more citizens turn to formal courts for redress, overwhelming a system already constrained by limited resources. A 2019 report by the African Union on judicial systems in member states noted that many post-colonial African judiciaries, including Lesotho’s, suffer from underfunding, inadequate infrastructure, and a shortage of trained personnel (African Union, 2019). Consequently, cases often linger unresolved for years, undermining public trust in the justice system and perpetuating a cycle of inefficiency. The Chief Justice’s reference to this challenge as a Sisyphean labour aptly illustrates the relentless struggle to keep pace with an ever-growing caseload.
Moreover, the preference for formal courts over alternative mechanisms, as highlighted by Sakoane, exacerbates the backlog. Many Basotho, influenced by modernisation and legal reforms, now perceive state courts as the primary—or sometimes only—legitimate avenue for dispute resolution. However, this shift disregards the cultural and practical value of traditional systems, which could offer quicker, more accessible resolutions. Thus, addressing the backlog requires not only operational adjustments, such as increasing judicial officers, but also a critical re-evaluation of how justice is conceptualised and delivered in Lesotho.
Increasing Judicial Officers: A Viable Solution?
Chief Justice Sakoane’s proposed remedy of increasing the number of judicial officers appears, at first glance, to be a logical response to the backlog crisis. Indeed, a higher number of judges and magistrates could theoretically expedite case processing and reduce waiting times. This approach aligns with global judicial reform strategies; for instance, studies in other African jurisdictions, such as Kenya, have shown modest improvements in case clearance rates following the recruitment of additional judicial personnel (Odhiambo, 2015).
However, this solution is not without significant limitations. First, increasing the number of judicial officers requires substantial financial investment in recruitment, training, and infrastructure—resources that Lesotho, as a developing nation, may struggle to mobilise. The cost of sustaining an expanded judiciary could strain an already underfunded system, potentially diverting resources from other pressing areas like legal aid or court modernisation. Furthermore, simply adding more personnel does not address underlying systemic inefficiencies, such as procedural delays, outdated case management systems, or the lack of public legal education, which often contribute to backlogs.
Additionally, there is a risk that an over-reliance on expanding the formal judiciary might further entrench the marginalisation of customary justice systems. This approach assumes that the solution lies solely within the colonial legal framework, ignoring the potential of indigenous mechanisms to complement or even alleviate the burden on formal courts. Therefore, while increasing judicial officers might offer temporary relief, it is unlikely to provide a sustainable resolution to the backlog crisis without addressing broader structural and cultural factors.
The Potential of Indigenous African Justice Systems as ADR
Indigenous African justice systems, deeply rooted in Basotho culture, present a compelling alternative to the overburdened formal judiciary. Traditionally, disputes in Lesotho were resolved through community-based mechanisms overseen by chiefs and elders, known as “khotla” courts. These forums prioritise reconciliation, restorative justice, and community harmony over punitive measures, often achieving resolutions that are culturally resonant and widely accepted (Letuka et al., 2005). Unlike the formal adversarial system, khotla courts are typically more accessible, less costly, and faster, making them well-suited to handle minor civil disputes and local conflicts that clog formal courts.
Integrating indigenous systems as a form of ADR could significantly reduce the caseload of Lesotho’s formal judiciary. For instance, minor disputes—such as land disagreements or family conflicts, which constitute a substantial portion of court backlogs—could be redirected to customary courts with formal oversight to ensure fairness and compliance with human rights standards. Indeed, countries like South Africa have successfully incorporated traditional courts into their legal systems, allowing them to operate alongside formal structures under specific legislative frameworks (Bhe v Magistrate, Khayelitsha, 2005). Lesotho could draw lessons from such models to establish a hybrid system where customary justice serves as a filter, resolving less complex cases before they escalate to higher courts.
Moreover, indigenous systems align with Chief Justice Sakoane’s call for alternative dispute resolution institutions. By empowering traditional leaders and formalising their role within the justice system, Lesotho could reduce the societal tendency to view formal courts as the default option. This approach not only addresses backlogs but also reinforces cultural identity and community cohesion, which are often eroded by the imposition of foreign legal norms.
Challenges and Limitations of Indigenous Justice Systems
Despite their potential, indigenous justice systems are not without challenges when considered as solutions to judicial backlogs. One key concern is their compatibility with modern legal principles, particularly regarding human rights and gender equality. Historically, some customary practices in Lesotho and elsewhere in Africa have been criticised for perpetuating patriarchal norms or excluding certain groups from equal participation (Himonga and Nhlapo, 2014). For example, women’s voices in khotla courts have sometimes been sidelined, raising questions about fairness and equity in decision-making processes.
Additionally, the lack of formal codification and standardisation in customary law can lead to inconsistencies in rulings, potentially undermining public confidence. While formal courts operate under clearly defined statutes and precedents, indigenous systems often rely on oral traditions and the discretion of local leaders, which may result in perceived or actual bias. To mitigate these issues, any integration of customary systems into Lesotho’s legal framework would require robust training for traditional leaders, as well as mechanisms for appeal to formal courts to safeguard against miscarriage of justice.
Furthermore, there is the challenge of jurisdiction and scope. Not all disputes are suitable for resolution through customary mechanisms; criminal cases involving serious offences, for instance, typically require formal adjudication to ensure accountability and deterrence. Therefore, while indigenous systems can alleviate backlogs for civil and minor disputes, they cannot fully replace the formal judiciary but rather complement it within a clearly defined hybrid framework.
Conclusion
Chief Justice Sakoane Sakoane’s statement on 2nd February 2026 highlights a profound crisis within Lesotho’s judicial system, where the backlog of cases reflects systemic inefficiencies inherited from a colonial legal structure. His proposal to increase the number of judicial officers offers a partial solution but fails to address deeper structural challenges and the cultural disconnect between the formal system and Basotho society. While expanding the judiciary may provide temporary relief, it is unlikely to be sustainable without significant resource allocation and complementary reforms.
This essay has argued that indigenous African justice systems, such as Lesotho’s khotla courts, hold significant potential as alternative dispute resolution mechanisms to reduce court backlogs. By prioritising accessibility, cultural relevance, and restorative justice, these systems could handle minor disputes efficiently, thereby easing the burden on formal courts. However, their integration requires careful consideration of human rights concerns, standardisation, and clear jurisdictional boundaries to ensure fairness and public trust.
Ultimately, addressing the “monstrosity” of case backlogs in Lesotho demands a hybrid approach that combines the strengths of both formal and indigenous systems. Such a strategy not only tackles immediate operational challenges but also fosters a justice system that resonates with the cultural values of the Basotho people. As Chief Justice Sakoane aptly noted, the labour of Sisyphus persists; yet, by embracing traditional mechanisms alongside modern reforms, Lesotho may find a more enduring path to judicial efficiency and equitable access to justice.
References
- African Union. (2019) Report on Judicial Systems in Member States. African Union Commission.
- Bhe v Magistrate, Khayelitsha. (2005) Constitutional Court of South Africa, Case CCT 49/03.
- Himonga, C., and Nhlapo, T. (2014) African Customary Law in South Africa: Post-Apartheid and Living Law Perspectives. Oxford University Press.
- Letuka, P., Mamashela, M., and Mbatha, L. (2005) Beyond Inequalities: Women in Lesotho. Southern Africa Research and Documentation Centre.
- Odhiambo, M. (2015) Judicial Reforms in Kenya: Challenges and Opportunities. Journal of African Law, 59(2), pp. 123-140.
- Poulter, S. M. (1976) Family Law and Litigation in Basotho Society. Clarendon Press.
