REPORT ON A FORMAL INQUIRY ON THE LHDA RESETTLEMENT PROGRAMME |
|
|
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements
Executive
Summary
Introduction
Part
1 - Nature of Complaints
Part
2 - LHDA’s Response
Part 3
- Evidence by NGO’s
Part
4 - Site Inspections
Part 5
- Findings
Part 6
- Legal Aspects Part 7
- Decision
Part 8 - Recommendations
The Ombudsman
wishes to extend his profound appreciation for the assistance and
co-operation he received from various people, groups and organizations
during the inquiry. Without this assistance and co-operation this inquiry
would not have been the success that it has been. Those people and
organizations are:
1.
The complainants who used to
travel long distances and sit patiently during the hearings which lasted for
days. They also waited for months for this report.
2.
The LHDA team who stood the test
of patience and endurance during the rigorous cross-examination to which it
was subjected. It also assisted the inquiry in understanding the many
aspects of the compensation programme. We appreciate its readiness to admit
the matters it could not defend.
3.
The Transformation Resource Centre
(T.R.C.) which assisted in many logistical areas. It also gave the evidence
that assisted the inquiry strike the balance between the versions of the
warring sides.
4.
The Chiefs: The Acting Principal
Chief of Thaba-Bosiu, Chief Lerotholi Theko and Chief Mosuoe Theko of Ha
Mosuoe. These chiefs sat with the inquiry literally all the time for the
duration of the hearings both in Maseru and in Machache, the two venues of
the hearings. Theirs was an exemplary dedication to the service of the
public. Also exemplary was their evidence. They gave an unbiased version
criticizing both LHDA and complainants alike and praising them where
necessary.
5.
The investigations and secretarial
staff of the office of the Ombudsman. They displayed an unprecedented
spirit of civil service by ungrudgingly working odd hours sometimes well
into the night. Gladly, their sacrifices are already bearing fruit as
evidenced by the expansion of the Ino Primary School at Ha Mosotho, Machache,
following the Ombudsman’s Special Report thereon which was released on 3
April, 2003. Hopefully, they will enjoy more fruits of their selfless
efforts in this inquiry after the publication of this report
6.
The Lesotho Highlands Water
Commission - it threw its weight behind the Ombudsman’s initiative in the
name of justice. It made constructive and useful inputs during the sessions
it had with the investigation panel and LHDA. It also came up with concrete
proposals for the redness of some of the complaints even before this report
was released. Truly commendable efforts.
7.
Molengoane Lodge for a warm
welcome all the time and the respectful treatment accorded us during the
hearings and during the report-writing stage. It would be remiss of me if I
did not mention their delicious dishes.
8.
Convention
Centre for kindly arranging the venue for us
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
In terms of
section 134 (1) of the Lesotho Constitution there shall be an Ombudsman who
shall be appointed by the King acting in accordance with the advice of the
Prime Minister. The functions of the Ombudsman are set out under section
135 (1) of the said Constitution and section 9 of the Ombudsman Act No.9 of
1996 (hereafter referred to as “the Act”).
Section 9 (1)
of the Act provides that the Ombudsman shall, in the performance of his
functions under section 135, have power :-
“ a) to
initiate investigations or inquiries upon a complaint
b)
to hold and conduct a formal
inquiry, and hear evidence on a matter in question;
c)
- - - - - -
d)
- - - - - -
e)
- - - - -
f)
to administer oaths to witnesses
or take affirmations of witnesses appearing before him at a formal inquiry
…..”
During the
months of December 2002 and January 2003 the Ombudsman received tens of
complaints from the people who have been resettled from the areas of the
Mohale Dam in the mountains of Lesotho into the lowlands of the country.
The resettlees were complaining against the Lesotho Highlands Development
Authority (hereafter referred to as “LHDA”) about various matters the most
important of which related to LHDA’s compensation programme. LHDA is
charged by law with the responsibility of implementing the Lesotho Highlands
Water Project in terms of section 20 of the Lesotho Highlands Development
Authority Order No. 23 of 1986 and Article 7 of the Treaty on the Lesotho
Highlands Water Project entered into by Lesotho and South Africa.
Considering the
volume of the complaints, the circumstances of the complainants and the
importance of the body complained about in Lesotho’s economy and general
scene the Ombudsman decided to hold and conduct a formal inquiry into those
complaints.
THE SCOPE OF
THE INQUIRY
The Ombudsman,
having made the above decision, then drew up a list of the matters which
would be covered by the inquiry. These were:-
·
To take evidence on the precise
respects in which the various complainants have been affected by the Lesotho
Highlands Water Project and the nature of compensation to which they are
each entitled.
·
To hear evidence on the refusal or
delay by LHDA to make compensation to the members of the public who have
been affected by the Lesotho Highlands Water Project.
·
To investigate whether or not the
Treaty on the Lesotho Highlands Water Project, (including any Protocols
thereto), the Lesotho Highlands Development Authority Order No. 23 of 1986
(including any amendments thereto) and any other relevant legal instrument(s)
have been complied with by the parties to the complaints. · To hear evidence on any matter or respect which may be relevant to the proposed inquiry.
THE INQUIRY
METHODOLOGY
Each community
of the complainants put their grievances together and chose one of their
number to represent them before the Ombudsman. Individuals were also
allowed to give evidence either to fill up the representative or on matters
which affected them as such and not as a group. There were people who
appeared before the Ombudsman with complaints but who had not written to him
before the inquiry started. The Ombudsman allowed such people to state
their cases. Each person who testified before the inquiry did so on oath
administered by the Ombudsman.
LHDA put
questions to any witness whose testimony it wanted to challenge. At the end
of the testimony by complainants LHDA gave its own and complainants
crossed-examined it thereon. The Ombudsman’s panel also had the right to
ask questions intended mainly to seek clarification on the facts testified
to by witnesses. The second phase of the inquiry consisted of site inspection of communities, households picked out at random, some schools and public infrastructure and facilities such as roads, water supplies and health facilities.
CATEGORIES
OF WITNESSES
The inquiry
took evidence from complainants, liaison committee members, LHDA, chiefs and
representatives of Non–Governmental Organizations. It also received
documentary evidence, which was produced by the parties and other witnesses.
During the
inquiry the Ombudsman did seek clarification from some of the complainants
and LHDA separately. This happened mostly during the inspection phase.
There was another session with LHDA where the legal aspects of the inquiry
were discussed. This being a technical session complainants did not
participate in it (though not excluded from it) but they had been informed
that the same would follow towards the very end of the inquiry. For the
same reason, the chiefs, committees and Non-Governmental Organisations were
not invited to this session.
Discussions
were also held with the Lesotho Water Commission about various aspects of
the inquiry. Such sessions took place in the presence of LHDA.
EVIDENCE
The
complainants testified to a wide variety of failures by LHDA ranging from
failure to pay compensation for lost fields to failure or refusal to refund
the moneys used to pay the people who had been hired to drive animals from
the mountains to the lowlands.
There were
accusations of LHDA acting outside the law by failing to pay interest on the
amounts of compensation which were not paid in time in accordance with the
agreement between the parties and most importantly in accordance with the
Lesotho Highlands Development Authority Order No. 23 of 1986. Some complainants lamented that they had been discriminated against in that they (the Thetsane relocatees) had been denied certain classes of compensation to which the resettlees from the mountains were entitled. This, they argued, violated the Lesotho Constitution because they were treated differently from the resettlees yet they were also affected by the construction of the Maseru-Mohale Road (Kofi Annan Road). In-as-much as they were moved from their original homes and deprived of their valued properties they were in similar circumstances as the resettlees and in terms of compensation entitlements they should have been placed on the same footing as the mountain resettlees.
FINDINGS AND
DETERMINATION
The inquiry has found the
allegations proved and LHDA itself conceded most, if not all, the failures
complained about. It honorably admitted to have failed to apply its
compensation legislation and to have used its compensation policies to the
exclusion of the relevant legislation. This failure as well as delay in the
payment of compensation were sought to be justified by LHDA’s internal
problems and the inadequacies in the legislation but these excuses could not
exculpate LHDA from its legal obligations and compliance with the law.
There is a further finding that
some of the complainants made attempts to defraud LHDA of compensation
benefits. They do not qualify for resettlement but pose as deserving
cases. We find that some of the failures by LHDA are too serious to be
committed by an institution of the stature of LDHA e.g. failure to comply
with the compensation legislation. We find that had LHDA effectively used
its Legal Department it would have avoided some of these infractions of the
law. We also find disparities in the treatment of complainants. The Matala,
Tsoapo-le-Bolila and Tsolo resettlees have not been afforded the housing
scheme afforded the Thetsane relocatees for the alleged reason that Thetsane
is situated in the municipal area. Matala, Tsoapo-le-Bolila and Tsolo also
lie within that area but their housing scheme is markedly inferior to that
of Thetsane. In terms of time, Matala, Tsoapo-le-Bolila and Tsolo were
established after Thetsane so that Thetsane should have served as a
precedent to follow in their cases.
The inquiry has
also found that LHDA was not monitored or supervised by the Lesotho Water
Commission as the Treaty requires. Had the Commission carried out its
obligation under the Treaty the complaints under investigation would have
been picked up and addressed long ago.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Ombudsman makes a wide range
of recommendations some of which have far-reaching consequences as they have
financial implications.
It is recommended, for instance,
that LHDA pays interest at the banks’ commercial lending rate on all amounts
which were not paid timeously or not paid at all and gave rise to these
complaints. There is also a recommendation that LHDA addresses the
disparities that exist between the Thetsane community and other communities
in the municipal areas of the Maseru City.
It is recommended further that
since LHDA negligently failed to build rondavels for some of the
complainants but instead added the measurements of such rondavels to the
measurements of the new houses, LHDA at its own cost, demolishes the new
houses to the extent of the measurements of the huts and builds the required
rondavels. If this cannot be done without damaging the structural soundness
of the main house then LHDA, at its cost, builds the hut or negotiates an
amicable settlement mediated by the Ombudsman. We recommend that
compensation moneys payable for communal assets be used on community
projects which benefit both resettled and host communities and not
individual households.
Regard being had to the
seriousness of LHDA acting completely outside the law in implementing its
policies, we are recommending suitable amendments to the legislation
governing compensation to assist LHDA use its policies properly and to close
the hiatuses in the legislation which LHDA says make it difficult for it to
run its compensation programme effectively.
Finally, we have not been able to
deal with some of the complaints for various reasons. For instance, the
complaints from the villages which were affected by the construction of the
road from St. Michaels’s to Ha Mohale were said to be under investigation by
an advisory committee set up by LHDA’s Chief Executive. These villages are
St. Michael’s, Ha Ralejoe, Ha Molengoane, Ha Nqheku, Setibing and Ha
Koporala. Complaints from Ha Ntsi were not dealt with to finality because while the Ombudsman was in the process of writing this report the Ntsi community instituted a court action under number CIV/APN/240/03 seeking interdict against many parties including the Ombudsman and seeking substantially the same reliefs as those sought in the complaints placed before the Ombudsman.
INTRODUCTION
Over the period
December 2002 through to January 2003, the Ombudsman received many written
complaints from the people who have been affected by the Lesotho Highlands
Water Project in various ways. They were complaining mainly about the
Lesotho Highlands Development Authority’s compensation programme. The
Lesotho Highlands Development Authority is hereinafter referred to as “LHDA”.
Considering the
volume of the complaints, the circumstances of the complainants and the
position occupied by LHDA in Lesotho’s general scene, the Ombudsman decided
to hold and conduct a formal inquiry into those complaints.
The inquiry was
to hear evidence on, inter alia, the refusal or delay by LHDA to pay
compensation to the affected persons and to investigate whether or not any
laws or legal instruments regulating payment of compensation to the said
people had been complied with.
At the hearing
each community testified to their complaints through a representative with
individuals having the right to fill up or give evidence on matters
affecting them individually. Every witness gave a sworn testimony and was
subject to cross-examination by the opposite side.
A total of 172
witnesses testified before the inquiry and twenty-six complainant
communities were visited for site inspection. Public infrastructure and
facilities were also inspected at twenty-six places.
The findings
made in this report are based on the evidence taken and recorded during the
hearings. Any item of evidence which was received after the hearings (and
there in fact was) was ignored especially if it was not any- thing new (i.e.
it was already within the witness’s knowledge during the hearings and would
require the other party to make answer to it. The cardinal principle is to
hear both sides to the dispute. (“Hear thou the other side”).
Finally, it is
to be stated and recorded that despite the use of the words connoting the
plural, the third person etc, the report remains the sole work of the
Ombudsman. It is he who did the analysis of the evidence, made findings,
the decision and recommendations
PART 1
NATURE OF
COMPLAINTS
1.0.
DELAY IN THE PAYMENT OF
COMPENSATION
1.1
All the resettlees complained
bitterly about the delay on
the part of
LHDA to pay compensation such as disturbance allowance, minimum threshold,
cash for arable land or delivery of grain in those cases where grain
consistituted the mode of compensation.
1.2
Closely linked to 1.1 was a
complaint that the late
payment
of compensation was not accompanied by
payment of interest on the outstanding amounts.
2.0
INADEQUACY OF COMPENSATION
(GENERAL)
Almost all
resettlees complained that the compensation rates were very low. It was
their feeling that their standard of living was far lower than before
resettlement as the amounts of compensation for their lost assets were too
little to keep them going for one year.
3.0
NON-PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION
FOR LOSS OF
COMMUNAL ASSESTS
They alleged
that the LHDA had promised to pay each family the above-mentioned
compensation, but to their surprise LHDA now requires that they form
co-operatives in order for them, as communities and not individual families,
to access the money. The above complaint was received from all resettled
communities.
4.0
COMPENSATION FOR GARDENS
4.1 They
testified that the new gardening plots are hopelessly
inadequate.
The information/explanation given by LHDA before resettlement differs from
what happened during resettlement. They were promised monetary
compensation for their original gardens and adequate plots for gardening
purposes in the new locations. Likewise this complaint was common amongst
all resettlees.
4.2
They alleged that they were
promised garden plots separate
5.0 MINIMUM
THRESHOLD ALLOWANCE
They alleged
that: -
5.1
Payment of minimum threshold is
not uniform as some households do not get it at all.
5.2
This allowance is always paid late
but appropriate interest as laid down in the relevant legislation is never
paid. 5.3 They demanded that this compensation be paid for as long as the dam exists. This demand is made by all complainants.
6.0
COMPENSATION FOR THE LOSS OF PRODUCTION
FROM
ARABLE LAND
They stated
that:-
6.1 For those
who have opted for grain compensation, the grain arrives late contrary to
the agreement between themselves and LHDA that it will be delivered in June
each year.
6.2 The LHDA
refuses to give them cash for fresh seasonal produce (lehoetla) namely
maize, pumpkin, peas, beans etc claiming that it is already included in the
compensation for the loss of production from arable land.
6.3
Consequently they demand a lump
sum payment for this type of compensation but the LHDA now wants them to
submit proposals for investments, which when submitted the LHDA always
queries.
6.4
They demand further that this type
of compensation be paid for the life time of the dam not for fifty years so
that even their great grandchildren can enjoy the proceeds. This too is a
general demand by all resettlees.
7.0
DOCUMENTS
7.1
Compensation Policy
7.1.1
Complainants claimed that the compensation policy
7.1.2
They also complained that it was
written in English and as
such they did not understand it.
7.1.3
The Thetsane relocatees
complained that the special
compensation
policy applying to them is discriminatory of
them in that
it denies them some forms of compensation to
which the
Mohale resettlees are entitled.
7.2
Blue Cards
Resettlees
complained about the dissimilarity between stages 1 and 2 blue cards and
about the difficulty they experience in understanding them.
7.3
Title
Documents
They pointed
out that Leases/Form C’s were not yet available to them across the board.
They therefore did not feel any sense of ownership of these properties in
the absence of these title documents.
8.0
PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE AND AMENITIES
8.1
Roads
They argued
that LHDA had promised to construct access roads to the villages but it had
not fulfilled this promise.
8.2
Water
Supplies
They alleged
that in some villages such as Ha Mosuoe there is no potable water supply
whilst in other villages the water sources are far from the resettlees. The
Tsolo community complained about the unreliability of their water supply.
Sometimes they go for weeks without water.
8.3
Health facilities
They alleged
that LHDA had promised to provide health facilities in or close to their new
homes but had reneged on the promise.
8.4 Schools
Resettlees
charged that LHDA had promised to build and upgrade schools but this had not
been done, citing Ino, Ratau and Metolong Primary Schools as examples of
schools which required immediate attention.
8.5
Electricity
The
complainants stated that even though LHDA had said that those resettled in
urban areas would be provided with electricity, there were cases where this
had not been done e.g. Ha Matala, resettlees Thabo Ralikomo, Taelo
Motseki and Kahlolo Sekolopata and the two households at
Tsoapo-le-Bolila. The Matala and Thetsane resettlees also complained
that LHDA had not provided them with the promised street lighting.
8.6
Footbridges
Those relocated
at Ha Thetsane claimed that they had requested for the construction of a
footbridge on what they call “Blue River” but their request had not yet been
responded to.
9.0
RESETTLEMENT SITE
9.1
Size
They alleged
that the resettlement sites are so small that kraals and other essential
outbuildings cannot be accommodated therein and they are left with little or
no land for gardening.
9.2
Fencing
There were
specific cases regarding fencing at Ha Seoehlana, Ha Thetsane and
Lithabaneng.
9.2.1
At Ha Seoehlana a complaint lodged
was that the fencing does
not serve the
security purpose it was intended for due to the
topography of
the area.
9.2.2
At Ha Thetsane the gate at
Leferefere’s house did not close
Properly as the
two sides of the fence were not in alignment.
9.2.3
At Lithabaneng the resettlee had
been given a roll of fence smaller than the extent of the area to be fenced.
10.0 HOUSES
10.1
Sizes of houses
10.1.1 There
was a general complaint that LHDA had built houses with
fewer rooms
than agreed and specified in the Blue Cards.
10.1.2 In some
cases construction specifications were not followed i.e.
despite the
owners’ instructions separate rondavels were not
constructed
but their area measurements added to the
measurements
of the main houses.
10.2
Defects in houses
There was a
widespread complaint about structural defects in the houses which included:
10.2.1 Cracks
in the walls
10.2.2 Leaking
roofs
10.2.3 Sagging
and stained ceilings and cornices
10.2.4 Windows
and doors not closing properly and letting in rain and
wind
10.2.5
Dampness in the walls
10.2.6 Tiles
that were coming off
10.2.7 Facia
boards falling off roofs
10.2.8 VIP
toilets not being in good working order.
10.2.9
Water tanks
§
Non-fitting water tank lids
because of down pipe
§
Low platform making it difficult
to draw water
There was a
problem with three pit latrines at Ha Matala, Ha Maja and Nazareth which the
complainants claimed were threatening to sink.
10.3
Stoves
Most of the
complainants who had had coal stoves installed complained that:
10.3.1 They
emitted smoke into the house.
10.3.2 They
appeared to be leaking a black substance/liquid in the
chimney.
10.3.3 Some
had parts missing e.g. a leg
10.3.4 The
owners were never instructed on the usage of the stoves.
10.3.5
At Ha Mpiti, Thabo Bosielo had
been provided with a gas stove
without a gas cylinder contrary to LHDA’s policy.
11.0
THETSANE HOUSING SCHEME
11.1
The above-mentioned defects in the
resettlees’ houses are also
pertinent to
the Thetsane relocatees. In addition the following problems were raised by
the relocatees:
11.1.1
There was a general complaint that there was no consultation
about the
relocation sites and house plans.
11.1.2 The
houses appear to have been constructed on a quarry fill with
the result that
there is no suitable land for gardening. The
promised
cultivable soil has never been trucked in by the LHDA.
11.1.3
Replacement sites are too small compared to the original sites.
11.1.4 The big
sliding glass doors are not burglar proofed.
11.1.5 Some
relocatees complained that built-in wardrobes were not fitted
in the houses
which were qualified for them.
11.1.6 Some
relocatees complained that their two-roomed houses had no
interconnecting
door, resulting in having to walk outside in order to get into the other
room
11.1.7 That
types A and B houses had not been constructed according to
plan
specifications i.e. for both A and B plans, bath-room and
toilet were supposed to be separate but they have been combined.
11.2
Geysers
All
complainants alleged that their geysers were in a state of disrepair and
this had affected the water supply in the houses. The geysers had burst at
almost the same time.
11.3
Conservancy Tanks
They
alleged that the conservancy tanks were far smaller than the
indicated
capacity of six thousand litres as they had to be emptied
three
times a month.
11.4
Blue River
“Blue River”
is a rivulet so called because of the effluent flowing
from the
Thetsane textile industries. The relocatees bitterly
complained
that this rivulet poses a health and environmental hazard.
11.5
Expanding donga (lengope)
The donga was
only partially filled and the unfilled part is now
encroaching on
nearby sites.
11.6
Nkhono Francina Nketsi’s case
There was an
allegation that Nkhono Francina Nketsi whose site had been largely affected
by the road had not been relocated and compensated.
11.7 Mrs.
‘Malintsa Lintsa’s Rental Units
One Ms
‘Malintsa Lintsa alleged that her single-roomed units for rental had not
been built, meaning that she had lost the rent/income which was her only
source of income.
11.8
Toilets
‘Mathato Makara
11.8.1
There was a complaint by one Ms
Mathato Makara that her two
toilets
were not compensated.
Ms ‘Malitaba
Leferefere’s toilets
11.8.2
Ms ‘Malitaba Leferefere complained
that she had instructed that
her toilet be
erected outside the house but the toilet had been
constructed
inside the house. She said her house is small and
she has
children and the toilet inside the house reduced the
capacity of
the house.
11.8.3
Selapane Seleke, ‘Mathabo Makara,
Motlatsi Apell ‘Mapaseka Phutsisi, ‘Mabokang Lekhoana and Motaung Lintsa
protested about LHDA having combined their bathrooms and toilets contrary to
their house plans and without their authority
11.9
Unfinished Structure – ‘Mathato Makara
Ms. Makara
alleged further that she had not been compensated for foundations that had
to be abandoned on account of LHDA’s relocation plans.
12.0
COMPENSATION FOR TREES
The following
people complained that they were not compensated for their fuel, timber and
fruit trees:
1.
Litaba Moqekela
- Ha Tsolo
2.
Moqekela Ralepoma -
Ha Mosalla
3.
Motseoa Isaac - Ha
Maja
4.
‘Malebona Mokoatsi -
Thuathe
5.
Mosoeu Leteka -
Lithabaneng
6.
‘Mathato Takatso -
Ha Ratau
7.
Makalo Lakabane -
Ha Ratau
8.
Tsepiso Mosoeu -
Ha Ratau
9.
Malipolelo Makoko - Ha
Moji
10.
Ntuoe Makhoali - Ha
Mosuoe
11.
‘Malebohang Makhoali - Ha
Mosuoe
12.
Matseliso Jane -
Tsoapo le Bolila
13.
Tseliso Ralepoma -
Nazareth
14.
‘Maleronti Ralepoma -
Nazareth
15.
Pule Pule - Ha
Makhale
16.
Nteso Nteso - Ha
Makhale
17.
Khotso Lakabane - Ha
Makhele
18.
Mojaki Morokole - Ha
Molengoane
19.
Tsebela Rajane -
Ha Seoehlana
20.
‘Mampai Leshapa - Ha
Seoehlana
13.0 KRAALS
AND OTHER STRUCTURES
The following
people complained that they had not been compensated for their Kraals and
other structures :-
1.
‘Matsatsi Leteka
- Ha Mpiti
2.
Lekhotso Maleke
- Ha Abia - kraal
3.
Lipolelo Makoko - Ha Tsolo - shacks, (motebo-ntloana)
4.
Sekolotsa Makhoali
- Ha Mosuoe - kraal
5.
Selone Kolotsane
- Ha Makhabane
6.
Mojaki Morokole
- Ha Molengoane - kraals
7.
Moabi Bosielo
- Ha Makotoko – stable
8.
Mosuoe Leteka
- Lithabaneng – stable
9.
Nazareth Community
- Hen houses (lirobe)
14.0
DAMAGED
PROPERTY
There was a complaint from Mr.
Mojaki Morokole that some of his property was damaged during transportation
to the new site and he had not been compensated therefore. The items
involved were:
1.
1 Sideboard
2.
4 Chairs
3.
1 Table
4.
1 Sewing Machine
5.
2 Kists
15.0
INCOMPLETE HOUSE STRUCTURES (ORIGINAL HOMES)
The following resettlees
complained about non-payment of compensation for the structures set out in
the brackets viz.
1.
Lekau Lekau (Lerako)
- Ha Sekete
2.
‘Masechaba Thafeng (Lerako)
- Ha Sekete
3.
Macheche Tota (Lerako)
- Ha Ratau
4.
Nteso Nteso (Lerako)
- Ha Makhale 5. Mofafatsa Takatso (Lerako) |