liboto tse mpe. Tsena ke bots leha e le efe e nang le sepheo se kotsi. Tatso ea "White Belgian" e tlaase haholo, e senola tatso feela ka mor'a phekolo ea mocheso - ho pheha kapa ho chesa. Litefiso tsa lebasetere la "Belgian White" li fihla li-ruble tse 180. 1. Ithuteng go thekga ditho ge le bolela ka tšhelete. SADC peacekeeping role has not been clear, as the cases of the DRC and Lesotho have indicated. What weakened the case for intervention in both cases has been the lack of transparency and clarity in relation to when the consensus was reached to intervene. Lack of accountability and transparency in a decision of this magnitude serve only to erode SADC credibility as a regional body. This has raised questions relating to whether these countries have indeed abided by the 1992 SADC Treaty which “calls on its member states to promote peace and security, human rights, democracy, the rule of law and the peaceful settlement of disputes”. The perceived lack of transparency and accountability has left a major hole in understanding of the above peacekeeping operations. These operations also raised questions of procedure, specifically as to whether proper procedures were followed or not. Similarly, issues concerning peaceful settlements of disputes have also been raised by these interventions, though the main question has always been which protocol sanctioned these interventions. The question is, what is currently being contemplated a SADC Peacekeeping Mission or an Extension of an Oversight body which have been agreed to during the above Summit? If that is the case, then, why involve military in this endeavor more especially when SADC is assisting Lesotho. These are very critical questions moreso when the 1998 intervention was highly suspect and questionable.