Lesotho court forces five displaced families to share compensation with host community — a ruling that raises bigger questions about justice for the uprooted
In a decision that closed a six-year legal fight, a Lesotho court has upheld a controversial policy requiring five families uprooted by the construction of the Mohale Dam to share their lump-sum compensation with the broader community that now houses them.
- Advertisement -
Justice Kopo ruled this week that the Lesotho Highlands Development Authority’s (LHDA) distinction between rural and urban resettlement was lawful, and that the families’ payments — reported at just over M1 million each (roughly US$50,000, depending on exchange rates) — must be apportioned with residents of Thuathe, the settlement where they were relocated. The court dismissed the families’ application and ordered them to pay costs, bringing to an end a dispute that began in 2018.
What the families said — and why they complained
The five households argued that the policy was plainly inequitable. Their case was not only about money, but about the social and economic fabric that the compensation was meant to replace. In their submissions they said relocation to Thuathe had “caused them severe and irreversible losses,” adding that “their standard of living and income has been lowered.”
At the heart of their grievance was a simple but potent point: while the new settlement provided houses, it lacked the communal assets the families had relied on in their original villages — notably access to grazing land, which in rural Lesotho is a vital resource for cattle-based livelihoods and social standing. The families argued it was unfair to be required to share a payment meant to compensate them for losses with people who had not lost the same assets and whose needs, the families said, were different.
Why the LHDA divides resettlement types
The LHDA, which oversees projects linked to the long-running Lesotho Highlands Water Project (LHWP), differentiates between what it calls “rural” and “urban” resettlement packages. That distinction governs how compensation is calculated and whether funds are distributed as individual lump sums or pooled for communal development.
Justice Kopo accepted the LHDA’s framework, endorsing the authority’s right to apply different policies to different kinds of resettlement — a legal outcome that will likely shape future claims from people displaced by dams, roads and mines across the region.
What this ruling means for people and policy
The decision is a reminder that compensation is not just a legal formula; it is a social contract. Lump-sum payouts, which are often presented as straightforward redress, can fall short when the resources needed to sustain a household are tied to shared land and community networks.
Globally, development-induced displacement has exposed similar tensions. From hydropower projects in Southeast Asia to mining zones in Latin America and Africa, courts and development agencies are wrestling with how to balance individual restitution and community cohesion. Too often, critics say, the result is a patchwork of policies that fail to restore livelihoods or respect customary land uses.
Lesotho’s mountain communities are shaped by collective systems: grazing commons, kinship support, and practices around livestock that are both economic and cultural. A cash payment may replace a house or repay lost crops, but it cannot easily recreate communal pasture, traditional authority structures, or the social capital that turns cattle into income, dowries and status.
Practical consequences — and real anxieties
For the families in Thuathe, the ruling means a smaller windfall and a test of how they will reconstitute livelihoods in a place that, according to their claim, lacks comparable communal resources. For local leaders and the LHDA, the decision gives legal breathing room to a policy that aims to treat relocating and host communities as a single unit for development planning. But legal sanction does not automatically produce social legitimacy.
There is also a pragmatic worry: lump-sum payments are easily spent, diverted or eroded. International best practice increasingly favours a mix of asset-based compensation, long-term livelihood support, and community-driven investments — not only to prevent impoverishment, but to ensure that displaced people can rebuild sustainable economic lives. The court’s ruling does not address whether the shared funds will be used to restore grazing, create communal enterprises, or otherwise mitigate the specific harms identified by the displaced families.
Questions for policymakers and donors
The case highlights urgent questions for Lesotho and for international funders engaged in large infrastructure projects:
- How should compensation balance individual loss and communal needs when resources like grazing land are central to livelihoods?
- When host communities receive part of the payout, what accountability mechanisms ensure funds are used fairly and to restore equity?
- Are lump-sum payments the right tool where cultural and communal assets have been damaged — or should compensation lean more toward land swaps, communal land restoration, and long-term income programs?
These questions are not abstract. They are about how societies measure harm, responsibility and justice when development transforms landscapes and lives.
Looking ahead
The ruling will likely reduce the number of successful legal challenges to similar LHDA decisions in the near term. But it may also deepen mistrust among displaced families who feel their losses have not been made whole. For advocates, the outcome reaffirms the longer-term work: pushing for compensation frameworks that are transparent, participatory and tailored to local livelihoods — and for monitoring mechanisms that track how money is spent and what outcomes it produces.
In Lesotho’s highlands, where communities have long adapted to a harsh environment through shared practices, the stakes are more than financial. When a court decides how compensation is distributed, it is also making a judgment about what counts as a loss, who bears responsibility, and how a society chooses to rebuild together.
Will that rebuilder be a judicial ruling, an administrative policy, or the people on the ground who still need the land their ancestors grazed? The answer matters not only to five families in Thuathe, but to everyone watching how development’s winners and losers are defined and remade.
By News-room
Axadle Times international–Monitoring.
