Two local Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in Lesotho are fighting for control of European Union (EU) money meant to promote the interests of victims of gender based violence (GBV).
SHE-HIVE, an NGO purportedly promoting the interests of GBV victims, has dragged its “partner entity” Sesotho Media to court accusing the latter of wanting to sideline it from the M17million grant they jointly scored from the European Union (EU) to promote their mission.
In her founding affidavit filed before the High Court last week, SHE-HIVE executive director, Mamakhethe Phomane, said both organizations had signed a memorandum of agreement to jointly bid for funds under an EU funded project to bankroll civil society organisations working on GBV issues in Lesotho (European Union Delegation Grant Contract FED/2021/423-111).
Ms Phomane said the two organizations had successfully bid for the funding to finance their joint activities against GBV.
“…The grant application made to EU shows exactly that both parties bargained for the grant, and it would not have been granted to one without the other…” Ms Phomane states in her affidavit.
Even though the two entities had successfully bid for the grant, Ms Phomane said she was surprised when SHE-HIVE received a letter on 27 March 2023 from Sesotho Media effectively terminating their partnership. The letter purported to “terminate SHE-HIVE as the beneficiaries of the grant project”.
She said they had written back to Sesotho Media informing the latter that there was no basis for the purported termination. They had also invited Sesotho Media for a meeting to discuss the dispute but did not get a response within the five day period they had prescribed for a reply.
This had left SHE-HIVE with no option but to seek court intervention.
Ms Phomane states the termination is “riddled with illegalities” that call for the courts to intervene “to put it to a halt”. There is no just cause for the termination both substantively and procedurally, she avers .
“There is no complaint about anything, it be wrongdoing, breach or unacceptable conduct laid (sic) before the termination. We fail to find a reason that could have caused Sesotho Media to take such a drastic move without prior reason for so doing,” she further submitted.
She said the midway termination of the contract would cause severe prejudice to SHE-HIVE as it had shelved some projects to focus on its partnership with Sesotho Media.
“The contract is still continuing and there is still lot of work to be done on the project. SHE-HIVE had set aside so many of its projects and rejected others to set its concentration (sic) on this contract until 2025. They cannot (just) terminate the contract. SHE-HIVE had legitimately expected the contract to end in 2025, and acted accordingly to allocate its resources,” Ms Phomane said.
Ms Phomane also argues that Sesotho Media terminated the contract without giving them a fair hearing, let alone invite them to show cause why the contract should be terminated.
“We were not afforded a fair hearing or invited to show cause, if any, why the contract cannot be terminated. Sesotho Media is not entitled under any of the contracts signed to unilaterally cancel the contract. We will be suffering prejudice and injury as there are workers specifically employed to work in the project pursuant to the contract until 2025 when the contract ends. It goes without saying that should the cancelation of the contract go through, then SHE-HIVE will be faced with labour legal battles as possible suits of dismissals and redundancy will follow (if the termination stands),” Ms Phomane said.
“There are other contracts which we have entered into as a result of being party to this contract. The claims that may follow thereafter will adversely affect our cashflow in the event this contract is cancelled especially if it is cancelled summarily.
“The (other) harm likely to be caused by this termination is that funds we were supposed to be given by the EU will no longer be disbursed within the said project budget (period), thus suffering irreparable harm of failure (sic) to assist the victims of GBV for which the project was intended to assist.”
She said approaching the courts was their last resort as their efforts to “reconcile and/or reach mutual compromise” had borne no fruit after they tried to involve both the EU and the Lesotho Council for Non-Governmental Organisations (LCN) in efforts to settle the conflict.
“We tried to reconcile the dispute and reach a mutual compromise, involving the LCN and EU but it yielded no results, we have therefore been left with no choice or alternative but to approach the courts of law,” submitted Ms Phomane.
