Category: Events

Upcoming and completed conferences, public meetings, consultations, launches and registration-based events.

CDSJ, Ministry of Gender and MISA Strengthen Gender-Responsive Journalism in Lesotho
EventGender EqualityGovernanceHuman RightsMediaCompleted

The Centre for Development in Social Justice (CDSJ) partnered with the Ministry of Gender, Youth and Social Development and the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) Lesotho to strengthen male journalists’ understanding of gender equality, gender-based violence and responsible public-interest reporting. CDSJ led the training contribution on Gender-Responsive Budgeting and its practical application to gender-responsive reporting.

Date9 September 2026

VenueMinistry of Gender, Maseru

PartnersMinistry of Gender, MISA Lesotho and CDSJ

The one-day Male Journalists’ Workshop on Gender, Gender-Based Violence and Responsible Media Reporting brought emerging and practising media professionals into a structured conversation about the influence journalism has on public understanding, social norms and accountability in Lesotho.

The workshop responded to a practical concern: a reporter may cover a case of violence, a government programme or a national budget without recognising how gender roles, unequal power, disability, location, poverty and access to information shape the experience behind the headline. When these dimensions are missed, reporting can unintentionally reinforce stereotypes, blame survivors or present an official allocation as proof that a public problem has been solved.

CDSJ’s session connected public budgets with the lived realities journalists encounter in communities and public institutions.

A shared investment in responsible journalism

The Ministry of Gender convened the workshop as part of its work to strengthen gender mainstreaming, GBV prevention and coordination with the media. The programme introduced gender concepts, the forms and causes of GBV, positive masculinity, protection from sexual exploitation, abuse and harassment, and gender mainstreaming. It concluded with practical work on gender-responsive and ethical journalism, group reflection and participant commitments.

This partnership recognised that journalists do more than record events. Choices about language, sources, images, headlines and context can either protect dignity and deepen public understanding or reproduce the same harmful norms that gender-equality work seeks to change. Male journalists therefore have an important role as informed reporters and as allies who can challenge victim-blaming, sensationalism and silence around violence.

The programme built a common foundation in gender, GBV prevention and professional responsibility.

Participants examined how everyday editorial decisions can shape public attitudes and institutional accountability.

Following public money through a gender and inclusion lens

CDSJ’s Gender-Responsive Budgeting session began with a simple proposition: a public budget is not only an accounting document. It records choices about which problems receive attention, whose needs become priorities, how much Government commits and which institution must answer for the result.

Participants worked through the distinctions between an allocation, a release, actual expenditure, an output and an outcome. These distinctions matter to journalism. Money approved in a budget may arrive late or only partly. Money spent does not by itself prove that a service reached the intended people. A facility counted as an output may still be inaccessible, unsafe, unreliable or too costly for some groups to use.

“An amount is the beginning of the story. The public-interest story explains the choice, the delivery and the result.”Core message from CDSJ’s Gender-Responsive Budgeting session

The session clarified that Gender-Responsive Budgeting does not mean creating a separate budget for women or dividing every allocation equally. It means examining how revenue and expenditure affect people differently, identifying unequal barriers and starting conditions, funding the activities needed to address those barriers, and changing plans when evidence shows that results remain unfair.

From national announcement to community experience

Journalists were encouraged to follow a public promise through the full budget cycle. This means asking who helped define the need, what Parliament approved, what Government released, where procurement and implementation took place, whether the service functions, and who can practically use and benefit from it.

Six GESI domains for stronger reporting

CDSJ introduced six Gender Equality and Social Inclusion domains that help journalists identify where exclusion can enter a policy, programme or budget. Each domain links community experience to a decision, institution, standard or budget line that can be investigated.

Laws and institutional practiceWhether rules, eligibility criteria, standards and complaints systems include people fairly and assign clear responsibility.

Access to and control over resourcesWhether distance, fees, disability access, information, opening hours or decision-making power prevent practical use.

Beliefs and social normsWhether public decisions challenge or reinforce assumptions about gender roles, leadership, work and entitlement.

Power and decision-makingWho defined the problem, selected beneficiaries, chose the location and had enough information to influence the result.

Roles, responsibilities and timeHow paid work, unpaid care, farming, schooling and transport affect participation and access to services.

Dignity, safety and wellbeingWhether privacy, safeguarding, accessibility and freedom from violence or stigma are treated as real programme costs.

Intersectionality formed part of this analysis. Women, men and young people do not experience public services as uniform groups. Gender combines with age, disability, income, location, family status and other circumstances. A gender-responsive story therefore compares different lived experiences and traces each barrier to the responsible decision-maker and public provision.

The practical discussion showed how a reporter can connect a community experience to public records, responsible institutions and measurable results.

What gender-responsive reporting requires

The training connected budget analysis with newsroom practice. Responsible reporting requires journalists to protect the dignity and privacy of survivors, avoid sensational language and images, seek informed consent, use gender-disaggregated evidence where it exists, and state clearly when important information remains unavailable.

For budget stories, this also means going beyond the national announcement. A complete investigation compares the stated need with the approved amount, tracks releases and spending, examines geographic distribution and procurement, tests whether a service is safe and functional, and asks which groups gained most or least from the final result.
Ten checks before publishing a GRB story

Cite the correct year, document and amount.

Separate what was approved, released, spent and delivered.

Name the public problem and the responsible institution.

Identify the intended groups and intersecting barriers.

Apply the six GESI domains.

Request disaggregated and geographic data.

Compare selection criteria with actual beneficiaries.

Include diverse affected voices safely and with consent.

Measure functionality, quality, maintenance and outcomes.

State evidence gaps and avoid assumptions or stereotypes.
Building continued collaboration between the gender sector and the media

The value of the workshop lies in continued application. Participants can take the concepts into routine reporting on violence, health, education, local government, water, agriculture, justice, public finance and other sectors. Gender-responsive journalism should not appear only during commemorative campaigns. It belongs in daily decisions about whose voice is heard, which evidence is tested and whether public commitments produce fair results.

Continued collaboration between the Ministry, MISA Lesotho, CDSJ and media professionals can support future learning, responsible referral practices, better access to subject expertise and stronger public-interest reporting. Follow-up also creates an opportunity to see how participants apply the training in stories and how editorial practice changes over time.

CDSJ’s perspective: accountable journalism strengthens gender justice

CDSJ appreciates the Ministry of Gender’s leadership in convening the workshop and MISA Lesotho’s partnership in connecting gender knowledge with newsroom practice. Media professionals shape how people understand violence, public institutions and the choices Government makes with public resources.

For CDSJ, gender-responsive reporting combines accuracy with dignity and accountability. It protects people from further harm, questions stereotypes instead of repeating them, and follows public promises until citizens can see who benefited, who remained excluded and what must change.

This work strengthens both gender justice and democratic accountability in Lesotho. When journalists follow the money, find the people affected and test the result, they help communities and institutions move from announcements to evidence and from stated commitments to fair outcomes.

Follow CDSJ’s work on gender equality, accountable governance and public-interest communication.
More News & Events Subscribe for Updates
September 10, 2026
CDSJ Engages Mapoteng Youth on GBV Prevention and Gender Equality

EventGender EqualityHuman RightsGBV PreventionCompleted

CDSJ supported a Ministry of Gender youth engagement initiative at Dahon High School in Mapoteng, delivering an interactive session on gender-based violence prevention, the role of men and boys, gender equality and meaningful youth participation.

Date5 September 2026

LocationDahon High School, Mapoteng

PartnerMinistry of Gender

On 5 September 2026, the Centre for Development in Social Justice (CDSJ) joined the Ministry of Gender in a youth engagement initiative held at Dahon High School in Mapoteng. The gathering created a space for young people to examine how gender norms, unequal power and silence around violence affect their lives, their relationships and the communities in which they are growing up.

CDSJ’s contribution, delivered by Adv. Motlatsi J. Mofolo, connected two issues that are often discussed separately. The first was how men and boys can become accountable partners in preventing gender-based violence (GBV). The second was how young people can participate meaningfully in gender-equality decisions rather than being invited only after programmes and priorities have already been decided.

The Ministry of Gender youth engagement at Dahon High School brought young people together for discussion, reflection and participatory learning.

Why prevention must begin before harm occurs

The presentation placed the discussion within Lesotho’s wider gender and demographic context. It emphasised that GBV cannot be treated only as an individual act or as a private matter that institutions address after violence has already occurred. Violence is also shaped by everyday expectations within families, peer groups, schools, community structures, workplaces and digital spaces.

44.1%Women aged 15–49 reported as having experienced physical or sexual violence since age 15.

36%Women reported as having experienced violence by a husband or intimate partner.

29%Basotho are aged 10–24, illustrating why youth voice belongs at the centre of prevention.

These figures, presented from UNFPA and UNICEF materials referenced in the session, reinforce the need for prevention that changes the conditions in which violence becomes normalised or concealed. In a country where more than 60 per cent of the population is under 35, youth participation must form part of the prevention system rather than remain a small supporting activity.

“Ho thibela tlhekefetso ke mosebetsi oa sechaba sohle, empa o qala ka boikarabello ba motho ka mong.”
Preventing violence is a responsibility shared by the whole community, and it begins with individual accountability.

Men and boys as accountable prevention partners

The session challenged the idea that work with men and boys simply means adding male participants to a meeting. Meaningful engagement must produce changes in attitudes, behaviour, power relations and accountability. Men and boys should participate as people with their own duty to reject violence, coercion, entitlement and harmful peer pressure.

Accountability without displacing women’s leadership

Engaging men and boys should never excuse perpetrators, dilute women’s leadership or make men the centre of GBV work. It should create honest spaces in which boys and men can question harmful ideas about masculinity, practise respectful relationships and challenge one another when silence protects abuse.

Participants considered some of the conditions that men and boys can help change: social expectations that equate masculinity with control or aggression; the protection of offenders in the name of family or community reputation; economic and relationship power used to limit another person’s choices; online harassment and image-based abuse; sexist jokes and coercive behaviour that are dismissed until harm escalates; and peer pressure that rewards dominance.

The presentation proposed a practical pathway that can be adapted to schools and other community spaces:

1. ReachWork in the spaces where men and boys already gather.

2. ReflectDiscuss masculinity, power, consent and peer pressure honestly.

3. CommitAgree on clear conduct, including no violence, coercion or cover-up.

4. ActSupport respectful relationships, referrals and community action.

5. AccountTrack behaviour, challenge repeat harm and report back.

Youth participants following the discussion on GBV prevention, gender equality and personal accountability.

Participation during the engagement helped move the session beyond a one-way presentation.

From youth attendance to youth influence

The second part of CDSJ’s intervention asked a direct question: how much influence do young people actually have over decisions that affect their safety, dignity and future? A room may contain many young people while still leaving all important decisions in adult hands.

The presentation described a participation ladder that begins with decoration, where youth are invited for numbers, entertainment or photographs but have no influence. Consultation allows young people to express views, although adults may still make decisions without reporting back. Collaboration gives youth a role in shaping activities, messages and monitoring. Co-leadership shares authority and implementation responsibility. Youth-led change enables young people to identify concerns, organise action, engage duty-bearers and remain accountable to their own constituencies.

What meaningful participation requires

Young people need safe and continuous ways to contribute. Programmes should involve them when problems are defined, when solutions are designed and when results are reviewed. Participation also requires practical support such as safe venues, accessible information, transport or data where needed, clear safeguarding arrangements and feedback on what decision-makers accepted, rejected or funded.

The discussion also recognised barriers that can exclude young people even when an invitation exists. Adults may dismiss youth as inexperienced. Girls and young women may face stigma, care responsibilities or safety risks when they speak. Costs, disability access, timing and language can quietly keep some voices out. Young participants may also fear retaliation at home, at school or online if they speak openly about violence or discrimination.

Creative performance formed part of the wider youth engagement programme at Dahon High School.

Turning discussion into practical commitments

The session concluded with a simple framework for moving from discussion to action over a 90-day period. During the first 30 days, participants and institutions can identify the spaces where men, boys and youth should be engaged, the people who can open those spaces, and the safeguarding and referral arrangements that must be in place.

During days 31–60, structured dialogues can be held and young people can help shape prevention messages, school or community outreach, digital-safety content and reporting pathways. During days 61–90, participants can review whether the quality of youth participation improved, whether harmful norms were challenged, whether referral pathways were used appropriately and whether public commitments were honoured.

This framework does not assume that a single engagement can transform behaviour. A first dialogue can open the door, but prevention requires repeated practice, visible accountability and institutions that continue listening after an event has ended.

CDSJ’s perspective: youth voice belongs inside the prevention system

CDSJ appreciates the Ministry of Gender’s initiative and the opportunity to contribute to youth engagement in Mapoteng. Work to prevent GBV gains strength when it reaches young people before harmful expectations about gender, power and relationships become deeply established.

Engaging men and boys carries a clear purpose: to build accountability among those who can interrupt harmful peer norms, reject silence and support respectful relationships without displacing the leadership of women and girls. Meaningful youth participation carries an equally clear purpose: to ensure that young people help shape the decisions, services and community responses that affect their lives.

For CDSJ, the measure of a successful youth engagement is not attendance alone. The deeper test is whether young people leave with clearer knowledge, whether institutions create safe routes for their continued participation, and whether commitments lead to changes that can be seen in homes, schools, community spaces and public decision-making.

Follow CDSJ’s work on gender equality, human rights and youth participation.
More News & Events
Subscribe for Updates

September 5, 2026
Strengthening Lesotho’s Coordinated Response to GBV: CDSJ Participates in Anti-GBV Coordination Forum Reconstitution Meeting

EventGender EqualityAccess to JusticeHuman RightsCompleted

CDSJ joined government, justice-sector institutions and civil-society partners at a Ministry of Gender-convened meeting to reconstitute Lesotho’s Anti-GBV Coordination Forum and strengthen a coordinated, survivor-centred national response.

Date3 September 2026

Convened byMinistry of Gender

FocusNational GBV coordination

On 3 September 2026, the Centre for Development in Social Justice (CDSJ) joined government institutions, justice-sector actors and civil-society organisations for the reconstitution of Lesotho’s Anti-Gender-Based Violence Coordination Forum. The meeting was called and convened by the Ministry of Gender as part of efforts to create a stronger, more coherent national mechanism for preventing and responding to gender-based violence (GBV).

Mr. Ntheka Matobo of the Ministry of Gender delivered the welcome remarks. Dr. Mosiuoa Ramakoele led the presentation on the Coordination Forum, guiding participants through its history, intended purpose, proposed structure and the responsibilities required to make it operational and sustainable.

Government, justice-sector and civil-society representatives participating in the Anti-GBV Coordination Forum Reconstitution Meeting.

Rebuilding a national coordination mechanism

The presentation situated the Forum within a longer national process. It traced the call for an Anti-GBV coordination mechanism to the 2013 GBV Indicator Study, followed by the establishment of the Forum in 2019. The Forum was described as having entered a period of dormancy between 2021 and 2024, before reactivation efforts began in 2025 and the current reconstitution process was undertaken in 2026.

Why coordination matters

Survivors often encounter several systems—including health services, the police, courts, correctional services, social-development structures and community organisations. When these systems work in isolation, referrals can break down, responsibilities can become unclear and important cases can fall through institutional gaps.

The meeting therefore focused on rebuilding a Forum capable of providing a common framework for GBV prevention and response, reducing duplication among stakeholders, strengthening cooperation, supporting evidence-informed action and improving coordination at both national and district levels.

A presentation during the Anti-GBV Coordination Forum Reconstitution Meeting.

Meeting objectives included strengthening governance, reviewing earlier resolutions, refining the Terms of Reference and organising thematic working groups.

From a Forum on paper to a working system

The meeting’s objectives included agreeing on a sustainable secretariat and governance structure; reviewing decisions, resolutions and outstanding actions from earlier Forum meetings; reviewing and refining the Forum’s Terms of Reference; establishing thematic working groups; and identifying priority actions, responsibilities and timelines for implementation.

Participants considered the Forum’s purpose, membership, representation, leadership arrangements and institutional responsibilities. The proposed composition brings together the Ministry responsible for Gender, relevant line ministries, development partners and civil-society stakeholders. The structure presented for discussion included a permanent chair, a rotating advisory board, thematic working groups and district-level Gender Technical Committees.

The proposed Forum structure brings together government, relevant line ministries, development partners and civil-society stakeholders.

The presentation also emphasised that leadership of the Forum should involve more than convening meetings. Its responsibilities should include aligning Forum activities with national GBV policies and strategies, following up on decisions, facilitating information sharing and joint planning, promoting survivor-centred and rights-based advocacy, strengthening referral systems and maintaining regular reporting.

Turning discussion into accountable follow-through

The agenda was deliberately organised around continuity and implementation rather than beginning the process afresh. Participants received rapporteur reports from the previous two Anti-GBV Coordination Forum meetings, with attention to issues already discussed, decisions and resolutions taken, progress made and actions that remain outstanding. This provided a basis for testing the proposed Terms of Reference against earlier commitments and institutional experience.

The second part of the meeting created space for questions, clarification and reflection on the draft Terms of Reference before participants considered which institutions could contribute to the proposed thematic working groups. The closing session focused on agreed actions, the institutions or people responsible, implementation timelines and arrangements for the next Forum meeting.

This sequence is important because effective coordination depends on a visible chain from discussion to decision, from decision to assigned responsibility, and from responsibility to monitored action. Regular reporting and follow-up can help the Forum maintain momentum and ensure that commitments translate into practical improvements for survivors and communities.

Gendered justice concerns must form part of the response

A concern raised in the opening remarks

The opening remarks drew attention to the gendered operation of the criminal justice system in pregnancy- and child-related cases involving women and girls. This intersects directly with CDSJ’s growing work on situations in which criminal responsibility can be applied in a one-sided manner, leaving women and girls to carry disproportionate legal and social consequences.

For CDSJ, this discussion is significant because GBV coordination must address not only individual acts of violence but also institutional practices that may reproduce gender inequality. A survivor-centred and rights-based response requires careful attention to how laws are interpreted, how cases are investigated and prosecuted, whose conduct is scrutinised and whether women and girls can access justice without discrimination.

Bringing this concern into a national coordination forum creates an important opportunity for justice institutions, government departments and civil-society organisations to examine gaps collectively and pursue responses that are both legally accountable and gender-responsive.

Broad participation across sectors

The meeting brought together representatives from CDSJ, Women and Law in Southern Africa (WLSA), Seinoli, Lesotho Correctional Services, the Ministry of Gender, the Lesotho Council of NGOs, Gender Links Lesotho, Help Lesotho, the Magistracy, Sesotho Media, the International Human Rights Lab and the Lesotho National Federation of Organisations of the Disabled (LNFOD).

The breadth of participation reflected the cross-sectoral nature of GBV prevention and response. Government institutions bring statutory mandates and public-service responsibilities; justice actors influence protection, investigation and accountability; and civil-society organisations contribute community knowledge, specialised services, advocacy, monitoring and direct engagement with people affected by violence and discrimination.

The participation of disability-rights and media organisations also gives the Forum an opportunity to strengthen accessibility and public communication. Effective coordination should make information, referral pathways and services understandable and reachable for people with different needs, while supporting responsible reporting that protects dignity and does not reinforce stigma.

Stakeholders discussing the Forum’s reconstitution and operating arrangements.

Participants following the meeting discussions.

Participants at the conclusion of the Reconstitution Meeting.

Cross-sector participation is central to effective GBV coordination.

CDSJ’s perspective: an important opportunity for the sector

CDSJ welcomes the Ministry of Gender’s initiative. The reconstitution of the Forum represents an important opportunity for Lesotho’s GBV sector to move from fragmented interventions towards shared direction, clearer responsibilities and stronger accountability.

The value of the Forum will ultimately be measured by whether coordination produces real improvements: functioning referral pathways, timely institutional follow-up, effective thematic working groups, stronger district-level action and services that survivors can access with dignity and confidence.

CDSJ also believes the Forum should create space to confront difficult structural concerns, including the gendered treatment of women and girls in criminal cases connected to pregnancy and child-related matters. Addressing these gaps requires government, justice institutions and civil society to examine how laws and institutional practices operate in people’s lives and to pursue reforms that are accountable, gender-responsive and grounded in human rights.

CDSJ is ready to contribute community experience, evidence and rights-based analysis to this collective effort. A functional Forum can strengthen not only Lesotho’s response to GBV, but also the sector’s capacity to prevent violence and challenge the inequalities that sustain it.

Follow CDSJ’s work on gender equality, human rights and access to justice.
More News & Events
Subscribe for Updates

September 3, 2026
CDSJ Convenes Project Implementation Planning Meeting on Gender-Just Criminal Justice Reform

Activity UpdateGender EqualityAccess to JusticeHuman RightsCompleted

CDSJ convened government, policing, civil-society and United Nations stakeholders to turn three connected gender-justice priorities into a practical implementation pathway for Lesotho’s criminal justice system.

Date26 August 2026

VenueLancers Inn, Maseru

Convened byCDSJ

On 26 August 2026, the Centre for Development in Social Justice (CDSJ) convened a full-day project implementation planning meeting at Lancers Inn in Maseru. The meeting moved beyond a broad statement that criminal justice should be gender-responsive and examined the concrete legal, operational and institutional work required to make that principle meaningful for women and girls in Lesotho.

The process engaged stakeholders from government, policing, civil society and the United Nations system. Invited institutions included the Ministry of Gender, the Lesotho Mounted Police Service’s Child and Gender Protection Unit (LMPS/CGPU), Women and Law in Southern Africa–Lesotho, UNFPA and UN Women. Their different mandates were important because the issues under discussion cannot be resolved by one organisation or one part of the justice system acting alone.

Stakeholders participating in CDSJ’s implementation planning meeting in Maseru.

Turning a reform idea into an implementation plan

The meeting opened by confirming the project purpose, its three planned deliverables and the key questions that needed collective attention. Participants were invited to consider relevance, feasibility, institutional linkages, risks and opportunities for collaboration before working through each reform area in detail.

The shared challenge

Women and girls can experience serious harm through phones, social media and other digital platforms while police and prosecutors lack sufficiently clear, practical guidance for recording, investigating and taking these cases forward. Girls and young women may also face criminal responsibility alone in pregnancy- and child-related cases even where men or other people share responsibility.

CDSJ’s project connects legal research, institutional practice, public engagement and case-based learning. The aim is not only to describe unfairness, but to help produce clear tools, credible evidence and coordinated advocacy that institutions can act upon.

Three connected reform workstreams

Clearer responses to technology-facilitated GBV

The first workstream focuses on abuse carried out through mobile phones, social media and other digital platforms. Planning covered the scope of the legal and operational issues, evidence needs, a drafting process for clearer regulations, practical police guidance, consultation and validation, technical roles, approvals and milestones. The intended pathway includes focused discussions, review of real cases, preparation of draft legal rules and step-by-step guidance, followed by formal engagement with justice leaders.

Fairer treatment of girls and young women

The second workstream examines one-sided criminal liability in pregnancy- and child-related matters, including abortion, infant abandonment and child neglect allegations. It asks whether the full circumstances are examined, whether shared responsibility is investigated and whether law and practice place a disproportionate burden on women and girls. The planned work combines consultation and case review with a clear reform paper and engagement with Parliament’s committee responsible for law and public safety.

Using a deserving case to inform wider change

The third workstream will identify and carefully assess possible prison or court cases, select one deserving case for potential review or appeal, and use the lessons to support broader legal and policy reform. Planning addressed selection criteria, legal strategy, institutional roles, decision points and the safeguards required before any case-related step is taken.

Planned learning4focused discussions

Evidence review6case reviews across two themes

Direct support1deserving case prepared for legal action

A participant contributes to the implementation discussion.

A project workstream is presented for stakeholder review.

What stakeholders planned together

For the technology-facilitated GBV workstream, the agenda required agreement on legal and operational scope, the evidence base, drafting responsibilities, technical input, consultation and validation pathways, required approvals and key milestones. For the position paper on one-sided criminal liability, participants considered priority legal and policy questions, the gender-justice framing, consultation, parliamentary engagement, responsibilities and timing.

The case-review workstream required additional care. Participants considered referral and selection criteria, assessment of possible cases, legal strategy, informed consent, confidentiality, safeguarding, institutional roles and the points at which decisions must be made. Cross-cutting discussions then addressed sequencing, coordination, information sharing, communications, documentation, learning, risk management and progress review.

The day concluded by consolidating an implementation action plan: identifying immediate actions, the institutions or people responsible, key milestones and dependencies, and the purpose of the next coordination meeting. This emphasis on named responsibilities and follow-through is essential if collaboration is to move from agreement in the room to measurable institutional action.

Safeguarding must shape every step

Protecting people who share their stories

CDSJ emphasised that case-related work must be grounded in informed consent, privacy, secure handling of information and the prevention of further harm. No legal or public-interest objective should override the wishes, safety or legal interests of the affected person.

Safeguarding is equally important when evidence is gathered through consultations or case review. Identities should be protected, disclosure should never be forced, and engagement with institutions or the media must be carefully planned. A survivor-centred approach is not a separate project activity; it is the standard by which every activity should be designed and assessed.

From planning to wider public engagement

The planned pathway combines technical outputs with public action: clearer legal rules, a practical police guide, a reform position paper, formal submissions to justice institutions, engagement with Parliament, support in one deserving case, a shared civil-society action plan and radio discussions that help communities understand the issues and sustain public attention.

This combination matters because legal reform is strongest when it connects lived experience, frontline practice, institutional responsibility and public understanding. Technical guidance must be usable by police and prosecutors; advocacy must be grounded in credible evidence; and communities need accessible information about rights, responsibilities and available remedies.

Stakeholders discuss implementation priorities and institutional roles.

Stakeholder contributions helped test the project’s practical assumptions.

Participants at the conclusion of the planning meeting.

CDSJ’s perspective: reform must be practical and accountable

For CDSJ, gender-just criminal justice means asking how laws and procedures operate in people’s lives. It requires institutions to respond effectively to emerging forms of abuse, investigate responsibility fairly and avoid practices that reproduce discrimination against women and girls.

The planning meeting created a shared foundation for moving from evidence to clear rules, from individual cases to wider reform and from public concern to coordinated institutional responsibility. CDSJ will continue working with justice institutions, civil society, women’s rights organisations, affected communities, Parliament and the media to advance this agenda.

Read the planning briefs

Two public CDSJ briefs supported the meeting’s technical discussion and provide a clearer account of the legal and implementation questions behind the initiative. They are published here to support informed engagement by justice institutions, civil society, researchers and the wider public.

TFGBV legal brief

Technology-Facilitated Gender-Based Violence in Lesotho

This brief maps relevant Lesotho laws and proposes a practical framework for identifying offences, preserving digital evidence, protecting complainants and preparing technology-facilitated GBV cases for prosecution.

Read or download the brief →

Case-assessment brief

Challenging One-Sided Criminal Prosecution in Pregnancy-Related Cases

This planning brief examines fair, evidence-based investigation of abortion, infant-abandonment and child-neglect cases, including paternity, possible sexual offences, participation, maintenance and care duties, and relevant social circumstances.

Read or download the brief →

Continue following this gender-just criminal justice initiative.
Watch the Mohale FM Interview
More News & Events

August 26, 2026
Second National Male Engagement Forum Meeting and Training of Trainers

Activity UpdateEventGender EqualityHuman RightsCompleted

CDSJ joined the Second National Male Engagement Forum Meeting and Training of Trainers to strengthen coordinated, accountable work with men and boys in preventing gender-based violence and advancing gender equality in Lesotho.

Dates22–24 June 2026

VenueKick for Life, Maseru

Convened byMinistry of Gender with UNFPA

The Centre for Development in Social Justice (CDSJ) participated in the Second National Male Engagement Forum Meeting and Male Engagement Training of Trainers, held from 22 to 24 June 2026 at Kick for Life in Maseru. The activity was convened by the Ministry of Gender, Youth and Social Development, Recreation and Sports in partnership with UNFPA.

The three-day engagement brought together stakeholders from government, civil society, community structures and development partners. It provided a national space for coordination, exchange of practical experience and capacity strengthening around the role of men and boys in preventing and responding to gender-based violence (GBV).

Participants during the national forum and Training of Trainers programme.

Why meaningful male engagement matters

Ending GBV requires strong services, protection and justice for survivors. It also requires prevention: sustained work with the people, relationships and institutions through which ideas about gender, power, authority and masculinity are learned and reinforced.

Men and boys are not a single or uniform group, and male engagement should not treat them as such. Effective programmes create space to examine how social expectations around manhood can encourage control, silence, emotional isolation, unequal decision-making and the normalisation of violence. They also help participants identify positive alternatives grounded in respect, non-violence, care, shared responsibility and equality.

Accountability must remain central

Male engagement is not about moving attention or resources away from women and girls, excusing harmful behaviour or presenting men as the “solution” to women’s rights. It should support men and boys to recognise unequal power, take responsibility for their conduct and act as accountable partners within a wider gender-justice and survivor-centred agenda.

Building facilitators who can support change

The Training of Trainers strengthened participants’ understanding of male-engagement approaches, facilitation methods, community mobilisation and practical strategies for working with men and boys. This kind of training is important because sensitive conversations about violence, relationships, sexuality, fatherhood and power require more than a prepared presentation. Facilitators must be able to build trust, encourage reflection, challenge harmful statements without closing down dialogue and recognise when a participant needs specialised support or referral.

Well-prepared facilitators can help groups move beyond abstract agreement that violence is wrong. They can guide discussion towards the everyday choices through which equality is practised: how decisions are made in households, how conflict is handled, how care work is shared, how peers respond to harmful behaviour and how men use their influence in families, workplaces, community structures and institutions.

Positive masculinities

Support healthier ways of expressing identity, strength and leadership that do not depend on dominance or violence.

Shared responsibility

Promote equal participation in caregiving, household decisions, sexual and reproductive health and community wellbeing.

Violence prevention

Help men and boys recognise harmful behaviour early, challenge peer norms and contribute to safer relationships and communities.

Community accountability

Connect personal reflection to responsibility within families, traditional structures, institutions and public life.

The Training of Trainers focused on practical approaches to facilitating work with men and boys.

From a national forum to community practice

A national coordination platform helps organisations compare approaches, identify gaps and avoid isolated interventions. It can also strengthen common standards so that community programmes are rights-based, culturally grounded and connected to appropriate services.

For CDSJ, the value of the Forum lies in how national coordination informs practical work at community level. Dialogue with men and boys should be linked to broader efforts involving women’s rights organisations, survivor-support services, justice institutions, health services, community leadership and child-protection structures. Facilitators should know the limits of their role and understand available referral pathways when conversations reveal violence, risk or an immediate need for support.

Community engagement also needs continuity. A single workshop may introduce ideas, but transformation requires repeated reflection, visible role models, organisational support and opportunities for men to practise accountability over time. Monitoring should assess not only how many people attend, but whether attitudes, relationships and institutional practices begin to change.

CDSJ’s contribution to the male-engagement agenda

CDSJ’s participation reflects its commitment to integrating male engagement into work on gender equality, human rights, child protection and community accountability. The organisation’s approach recognises that harmful norms are sustained across generations and therefore require engagement with families, peers, community leaders and the institutions that influence social expectations.

CDSJ will continue supporting approaches that encourage non-violent relationships, responsible fatherhood, positive communication, shared decision-making and respect for the rights and dignity of women, girls and other vulnerable groups. This work also strengthens the organisation’s ability to design community initiatives that are informed by evidence and responsive to the lived realities of Basotho communities.

CDSJ’s perspective: men and boys must become accountable partners

Lesotho’s response to GBV needs coordinated action before, during and after violence occurs. Survivor-centred services and accountability for perpetrators remain essential; prevention must work alongside them by challenging the inequalities and social norms that allow violence to continue.

The National Male Engagement Forum provides an important opportunity to align institutions, strengthen facilitators and build a shared movement in which men and boys are supported to question harmful norms and take practical responsibility for advancing equality. The measure of success will be safer relationships, stronger community accountability and sustained respect for the rights of women and girls.

Follow CDSJ’s work on gender equality and violence prevention.
More News & Events
Subscribe for Updates

June 26, 2026
CSW70 National Youth Consultation on Access to Justice for Women and Girls in Lesotho

Activity UpdateGender EqualityAccess to JusticeHuman RightsCompleted

A CDSJ-led national consultation brought together 30 participants from urban, peri-urban and rural communities to ensure that Lesotho’s youth perspectives inform the CSW70 global conversation on access to justice for women and girls.

Date16 December 2025

VenueUN House, Maseru

FormatSelf-funded national consultation

On 16 December 2025, the Centre for Development in Social Justice (CDSJ) held a one-day, in-person national youth consultation on access to justice for women and girls. Conducted in Sesotho and English, the consultation linked local experience in Lesotho to the global youth and adolescent engagement process associated with the seventieth session of the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW70).

The consultation created space for adolescent girls, young women, youth representatives and women’s rights allies to examine the barriers people encounter when seeking protection, accountability and remedies. Rather than discussing access to justice only as a legal principle, participants considered how cost, distance, age, gender norms, disability, institutional practice, limited services and digital exclusion shape whether rights can be exercised in practice.

Participants at the national youth consultation on access to justice for women and girls.

Who participated

The consultation brought together 30 people: 18 women and 12 men. One participant was under the age of 18, 14 were young women or youth aged 18–35, and 15 were women’s rights allies above the youth age bracket. Half of the participants were from urban Maseru, with others representing peri-urban communities in Berea and Leribe and rural communities in Mafeteng.

Participants30voices in the consultation

Thematic groups5areas of justice examined

Top priorities3recommendations for action

This mix was important because access to justice is experienced differently across age groups and locations. A service that is technically available in Maseru may remain inaccessible to someone who must travel from a rural community, cannot afford transport, lacks documentation or requires communication support. The consultation therefore treated inclusion as a practical question rather than a general aspiration.

Why the consultation was needed

Lesotho has laws and institutions intended to protect women and children, but participants identified a persistent gap between formal protection and lived experience. Justice processes can be slow, intimidating, expensive or geographically inaccessible. In GBV and sexual-abuse matters, stigma, victim-blaming, poor evidence handling and weak confidentiality can discourage reporting or expose survivors to secondary harm.

Access to justice is more than entering a courtroom

Meaningful access includes knowing one’s rights, being able to report safely, receiving respectful and timely assistance, accessing health and psychosocial support, obtaining legal advice, participating in a process without discrimination and receiving a remedy that responds to the harm experienced.

Adolescent girls may face additional restrictions when guardian consent is required before they can seek assistance, particularly where the alleged abuse occurred within the family. Women and girls in rural areas can face long distances to police stations, courts, shelters and legal-aid services. Poverty and economic dependence can further narrow the choices available to a person deciding whether to pursue a case.

Youth participants discuss barriers that affect women and girls.

Small-group work enabled focused discussion of justice issues.

Five areas examined by participants

Laws and policies

Participants discussed guardian-consent requirements, inconsistencies between child-protection and age-based consent rules, discriminatory school practices related to pregnancy, weak enforcement of women’s marital and property rights and harmful conduct for which survivors may carry the burden of seeking redress.

Justice institutions and practices

Discussion covered limited resources, intimidating procedures, inadequate training on GBV and adolescent-sensitive justice, weak evidence handling, lack of privacy and unclear accountability when police, prosecution or court processes fail survivors.

Services and remedies

Participants considered the concentration of shelters, psychosocial support and legal aid in urban areas, alongside the cost, travel, documentation and stigma barriers that make services difficult to reach. They emphasised health care, legal representation, education and livelihood support as connected elements of an effective remedy.

Legal empowerment

Limited knowledge of rights and referral pathways was identified as a major barrier. Community legal clinics, youth or peer paralegals, school-based rights education, better helplines and accessible legal information were discussed as practical ways to strengthen confidence and early access to support.

Digital and disability-inclusive justice

High data costs, limited devices, poor network coverage, low digital literacy and weak privacy safeguards can exclude women and girls from digital services. Physical barriers, inaccessible information and the absence of assistive technologies can similarly prevent persons with disabilities from participating equally in justice processes.

What participants identified as barriers

One concern was the way pregnancy can be treated within education systems. Participants raised practices that frame rape or sexual exploitation simply as “teenage pregnancy,” punish girls through exclusion or humiliation and fail to investigate the conduct of perpetrators. This can undermine both access to justice and the right to education.

Participants also drew attention to the capacity of justice institutions. Poorly resourced police stations, courts and prosecution services may struggle to provide private consultation space, timely follow-up, specialist officers or consistent case management. In sexual-violence cases, weaknesses in evidence handling can directly affect whether a matter proceeds and whether a survivor has confidence in the process.

Services and remedies were another central concern. Shelters, safe accommodation, psychosocial support and legal aid remain limited outside urban centres. Even where a service exists, transport costs, fear of stigma, language, documentation requirements and economic dependence can make it unreachable. Participants stressed that justice should connect legal outcomes with the health, safety, education and livelihood support needed for recovery.

Three recommendations for action

Reform and enforce laws and policies

Remove barriers that prevent women and adolescents from seeking justice independently; harmonise child-protection, consent and legal-capacity rules; prohibit discriminatory school responses to pregnancy; and enforce women’s marital, property and economic rights. Reform must include clear implementation measures so that protection exists in practice as well as on paper.

Strengthen survivor-centred institutions and services

Resource and train police, prosecutors, magistrates, judges and service providers to deliver adolescent-sensitive, disability-inclusive and confidential justice. Expand shelters, psychosocial support and legal aid, particularly in rural areas, and establish clear standards, referral pathways and responsibility for survivor follow-up.

Invest in legal empowerment and inclusive access

Support youth-friendly legal information, community legal clinics, peer and youth paralegals and school-based rights education. Expand digital access alongside cyber-security and data-protection safeguards, and ensure that justice buildings, services and information are accessible to persons with disabilities.

Participants present and validate recommendations emerging from thematic discussions.

A participatory and safeguarded methodology

The workshop ran from 08:00 to 18:00 and combined plenary discussion with five thematic working groups. Plenary sessions introduced the CSW70 priority theme, established the national context and allowed the full group to validate emerging findings. Small-group discussions created time for deeper examination of specific legal, institutional, service, empowerment and inclusion issues.

Facilitators used guiding questions that asked what prevents women and girls from accessing justice; which laws or policies create exclusion; which institutional practices cause delay or secondary harm; what remedies matter to survivors; and how legal information, digital tools, disability inclusion, data and accountability can be improved.

Safeguarding participation

Participation was voluntary and discussion focused on systemic and structural issues rather than requiring personal case disclosure. Participants were reminded about confidentiality, and rapporteur notes did not record identifying information. No individual was required to share a personal experience.

From Lesotho’s experience to global advocacy

The consultation generated locally grounded evidence for the CSW70 youth process while also producing a practical national agenda. Its recommendations speak to legal reform, the capacity of justice institutions, the quality and reach of survivor services, legal empowerment, digital safety and disability inclusion.

The process also demonstrated the value of connecting global policy spaces to national and community realities. International commitments are stronger when the people most affected can shape the evidence and priorities carried into those spaces. At the same time, a global process can create momentum for national action when recommendations are brought back to institutions, civil society and communities.

A consultation session at UN House in Maseru.

Youth engagement helped shape the final access-to-justice priorities.

CDSJ’s perspective: youth voices must influence justice reform

CDSJ believes women and girls should not be treated only as beneficiaries of justice policy. Adolescents and young people have knowledge about the barriers operating in their schools, families, communities, digital spaces and public institutions, and that knowledge should shape reform.

This self-funded consultation reflected CDSJ’s commitment to evidence-driven, people-centred programming. The next challenge is to ensure that the recommendations remain visible: strengthening laws, resourcing institutions and services, expanding legal empowerment and building justice systems that are accessible across age, location, income and disability.

By documenting and sharing these priorities, CDSJ will continue connecting community experience with national advocacy and international policy processes so that access to justice becomes a lived reality rather than a formal promise.

Follow CDSJ’s work on access to justice for women and girls.
More News & Events
Subscribe for Updates

December 16, 2025