Lesotho Highlands Development Authority refused to release baseline data on households affected by the Katse Dam. High Court hearing is set for 27 October 2026, three days after the 40th anniversary of the treaty that promised those households they would be no worse off.
Maseru/Johannesburg, 22 October 2026 – The High Court of Lesotho in Maseru will on Tuesday 27 October 2026hear an application by Seinoli Legal Centre (Seinoli), supported by the Southern Africa Litigation Centre (SALC), challenging the Lesotho Highlands Development Authority’s (LHDA) refusal to tell communities affected by Phase I of the Lesotho Highlands Water Project (LHWP) whether the promise made to them four decades ago has been kept. The application in Seinoli Trust v Lesotho Highlands Development Authority seeks to overturn the LHDA’s refusal to share the baseline data needed to determine whether people affected by Phase I, which includes the Katse Dam, have been able to maintain their standard of living.
A promise, and the record that tests it
When Lesotho and South Africa signed the treaty that created the project on 24 October 1986, they promised that people whose homes, fields and land were affected would be left no worse off than before. Article 7(18) of the Treaty requires the LHDA to “effect all measures to ensure that members of local communities in the Kingdom of Lesotho, who would be affected by flooding, construction works, or similar project-related causes, will be enabled to maintain a standard of living not inferior to that obtained at the time of first disturbance”.
To check whether that promise is being kept, the LHDA’s own Compensation Policy requires it to record how each affected household lived before the project arrived. This record, known as the baseline data, is meant to provide “a set of socio-economic indicators against which to measure changes in living standards and incomes of affected households”. Without it, the families themselves cannot know whether the promise has been honoured.
“The families we work with gave up homes, fields and land for this project, and they were promised that they would not be worse off. Four decades have passed, and some affected families and community members still do not know whether the promise has been kept. We are asking for the numbers, not the names. These communities want to know whether the obligation under the 1986 has been met,” says Lepeli Moeketsi, Programs Manager, Seinoli.
Dr Atilla Kisla, International Justice Cluster Lead at SALC, highlights that:
“If the LHDA has kept its promise to these families, the numbers will show it, and publishing the requested information should be the easiest decision it ever makes. One cannot ask people to give up their houses or land for a public project and then tell them that the record of their own lives cannot be shared. Lesotho may not yet have an access to information act, but it does have a Constitution.”
Why the case matters beyond Lesotho
Water from the Lesotho highlands already supplies South Africa, and the project’s second phase, at Polihali Dam, is due to begin deliveries in 2028 or 2029. Lesotho’s Ombud found that, as of 31 December 2025, M142.2 million in compensation remained owed for Phase I of the project.
Against this backdrop, the case asks a question that reaches well beyond one courtroom: whethethe people deemed to have been made a a promisto communitieses in an international treatyde. The answer will matter as the project’s second phase advances.
Media contacts
| Seinoli
Relebohile Thuhlo Litigation Consultant Email: relebohile.thuhlo@seinoli.org.ls Phone: +266 50331738 |
SALC
Dr Atilla Kisla International Justice Cluster Lead Email: atillak@salc.org.za Phone: +27 63 081 1512 |
Background
Affected individuals, households and communities around the Katse Dam, who said their livelihoods had become more difficult since the project was implemented, approached Seinoli. Seinoli requested the information by letters dated 28 March 2023 and 26 April 2023.
The LHDA refuseh access to information on 22 June 2023, citinf privacy and confidentiality. As Seinoli submits, the question is not whether privacy matters, but whether it can be used to keep a public promise out of public sight. Seinoli asks the Court to review, set aside and correct the LHDA’s refusal; to declare it unlawful, null and void; and to direct the LHDA to deliver the requested information within 14 days of the Court’s final order, with costs.