Lesotho: Lives forgotten by Lesotho's new inheritance law
The story investigates a critical gap in Lesotho’s new Administration of Estates and Inheritance Act, 2024. Although the law is celebrated for removing gender discrimination against daughters and children born outside marriage, it still excludes same‑sex partners from intestate inheritance and executor rights. Because the Marriage Act of 1974 does not recognise same‑sex marriages, partners in these relationships remain legal strangers at death regardless of the stability, duration, or economic interdependence of their relationship.
The feature centres on how this exclusion plays out in the lives of LGBTIQ families. For many same‑sex couples, building a life together involves shared homes, assets, and emotional commitment. Yet when one partner dies without a will—whether unexpectedly or due to fear of being outed—the surviving partner has no legal claim to jointly accumulated property. Extended families often take control of estates, leaving partners homeless, dispossessed, and without recourse.
The article documents accounts of individuals who shared, under strict anonymity, the trauma of losing homes, belongings, and shared histories after a partner’s death. Due to stigma and fear of exposure, most cannot pursue litigation to claim unjust enrichment or asset contribution, a path accessible only to wealthier individuals. As a result, low‑income LGBTIQ people experience the harshest consequences of exclusion.
Legal experts interviewed for the story emphasised that inheritance is not a moral or religious issue, but a constitutional matter of equality, dignity, and economic justice. The new law’s progressive elements cannot be fully realised while a section of the population remains outside its protections. The article also analysed regional jurisprudence, especially from South Africa, where courts have moved gradually toward recognising diverse family structures.
The story approached the topic with a safety‑centred, trauma‑informed method. All interviewees participated on condition of anonymity due to threats, harassment, and potential family retaliation. The reporting avoided sensational language and prioritised dignity, privacy, and accuracy.
By explaining the legal framework and its practical failures, the story highlighted how partial recognition—rights without mechanisms—cannot protect vulnerable communities. It reframed inheritance rights not as a debate about culture but as a constitutional question of non‑discrimination.
The piece reached lawmakers, civil society organisations, activists, and the general public. It sparked public conversation, with legal practitioners, activists, and community members referencing the article in debates and discussions. Its impact includes drawing attention from the Senate and advocacy groups, while elevating the visibility of an issue long hidden due to stigma and fear.
The story concluded by emphasising the urgent need to reform inheritance laws to reflect constitutional commitments to equality and human dignity. It called for a legal system that recognises diverse families and protects all partners—married, unmarried, heterosexual, or same‑sex—from disinheritance, dispossession, and injustice.