Original in-game verdict

Background 1. This application concerns the arrangements for an interview of the plaintiff, Thabiso Rantso, by investigators associated with the defendant, Mooketsi Seliane. Rantso seeks a video interview because he says that he was abducted and threatened after reporting on sensitive issues and fears that his location could be discovered. Seliane says that the interview should proceed, but initially rejected video and offered a protected physical venue arranged through counsel. 2. The record includes the parties’ letters, two news reports, an unsent draft of proposed safeguards, and their statements during this hearing. The letters and draft are evidence of what was communicated or proposed. The allegations in the parties’ submissions are not, by themselves, proof that the alleged events occurred. Issues for determination 3. The issues are whether the alleged threats establish a specific safety risk requiring protection, and whether the proposed interview arrangements reasonably address both sides’ concerns. The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the alleged risk. The parties share the burden of showing that their proposed arrangements can reasonably address the practical concerns raised. The supplied constitutional provisions are relevant to private life and the home, freedom from inhuman treatment, freedom of expression, and the route to seek redress. They do not prescribe a particular interview method. Submissions of the parties 4. Rantso initially offered a video interview through counsel. He said that an in-person interview could reveal his location and that counsel could confirm his identity. In a later statement, he agreed to a video interview provided his home address was neither required nor disclosed. He also accepted counsel’s identity verification and a room check. He asks that counsel be held accountable if his location is leaked. 5. Seliane’s letter rejected video, citing confidentiality, identity verification, and evidence security, but offered a secure physical venue arranged through counsel without asking for Rantso’s home address. Seliane later accepted that the draft safeguards could be considered for a remote interview. In the final submission, Seliane accepted counsel’s identity check and room check, agreed that Rantso’s home address should not be required or disclosed, and asked that the practical safeguards be settled with investigators. Seliane proposed the protected physical venue as a fallback if agreement on remote arrangements cannot be reached. Evidence and findings 6. The 8 October letter establishes that Rantso offered to cooperate by video. It does not specify identity checks, room checks, or recording arrangements. The 9 October reply establishes that Seliane rejected that initial proposal and offered a physical venue through counsel. It does not establish that the venue was selected, nor does it explain why every remote arrangement would be unacceptable. 7. The two news reports describe the interview disagreement. Their limited independence and secondary nature mean they do not independently prove an abduction or threats. One report’s employment connection to Rantso and the timing inconsistency described in the record further limit the weight that can be placed on the reports as corroboration. They do, however, provide context for the public disagreement. 8. The unsent draft proposes identity verification by counsel, a camera sweep of the room, an agreed recording method, and document transmission through counsel. It also states that Rantso would attend from a private room in Maseru without revealing his residential address. The draft proves that concrete safeguards were proposed, not that investigators accepted or tested them. The parties’ final statements materially narrow the dispute: both accept identity verification and a room check, and Seliane is willing to consider remote interviewing subject to agreement on practical details. Reasons 9. On the alleged threats, the plaintiff has not established that an abduction or threats occurred. The reports do not independently prove those allegations, and no other corroborating evidence is in the record. Section 8(1), concerning freedom from inhuman or degrading treatment, and section 14(1), concerning freedom of expression, are relevant to the concerns raised, but neither provision turns an allegation into an established fact or creates an automatic right to be interviewed by video. The finding on this issue is therefore not proven. 10. That conclusion does not make the privacy concern immaterial. Section 11(1) recognizes respect for private life and the home. The supplied material notes that the available constitutional consolidation predates the events described, so the version in force at the relevant time is not confirmed. I therefore rely on the supplied provision only as the stated relevant rule, without making a broader finding about its precise application. The parties’ own positions establish that Rantso’s home address need not be required or disclosed as part of the interview arrangement. 11. On the interview arrangement, the evidence establishes a genuine disagreement about method, not a refusal by Seliane to interview Rantso. The initial video request lacked practical details, and the initial rejection identified legitimate general concerns. But the later draft addresses those concerns in concrete terms, and Seliane’s final position accepts considering those safeguards. The draft is not yet an agreed or tested arrangement, so the court cannot declare that a particular remote setup is ready to use. Equally, the record does not justify insisting that only an in-person interview is acceptable. The parties’ final positions support settling the safeguards with investigators and retaining the protected physical venue as a fallback. 12. Section 22(1) provides a route to seek redress for alleged or likely contraventions of the specified constitutional provisions. It does not itself prescribe interview arrangements. The appropriate relief on this record is therefore limited to protecting residential-location confidentiality and directing a practical process consistent with the parties’ stated positions. The court does not find that the alleged threats have been proved, does not impose personal liability on counsel for a future leak, and does not determine that any leak has occurred. Final order 13. The application is granted in part. Rantso’s home address must not be required or disclosed as a condition of arranging the interview, consistent with the parties’ positions in this hearing. 14. The parties and investigators are to settle the practical safeguards for a remote interview, including identity verification, a room check, recording arrangements, and transmission of any documents through counsel. This order records the safeguards identified in the evidence; it does not find that they have already been agreed or tested. If the remote arrangements cannot be agreed, the protected physical venue offered through counsel remains an available alternative, provided it does not require disclosure of Rantso’s home address. 15. The request for a finding that the alleged abduction and threats are established, and for an order requiring video interviewing as the only method, is denied. No monetary award is made. The result is partial relief for the plaintiff, limited to the privacy protection and interview-arrangement process supported by the record.