…PS Mahlomola puts neck on the block over CEO appointment
Staff Reporter
The principle of meritocracy, prominently championed by Prime Minister Ntsokoane Samuel Matekane as the foundation of his administration, appears to have been disregarded in a contentious decision by the Lesotho Tourism Development Corporation (LTDC) board.
In a move that has sparked debate, the LTDC board overlooked the candidate ranked first by an independent recruitment consultancy for the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) position, appointing instead the second-ranked candidate, citing the need for a “fresh mind” to drive the organisation forward.
Pokello Mahlomola, the Principal Secretary (PS) in the Ministry of Tourism, Sports, Arts, and Culture, who chaired the meeting that sealed the controversial decision, has staunchly defended the board’s actions.
“I chaired the meeting when the final decision was made,” Mahlomola told Newsday this week.
He also mentioned that the process had been handled by a consultant.
“We had to make a decision between an old employee who had worked there acting in the same position and a new person who came from another organisation,” he said.
“It was important to look at the organization from which he came. We had to find a leader who would come with a fresh mind to change the organisation for the better. And we did,” he added.
Prime Minister Matekane has repeatedly emphasized that merit-based hiring would underpin his government. However, concerns about fairness and transparency are now overshadowing this promise.
Newsday reported last week that former acting CEO Sehlabaka Ramafikeng, who was reportedly ranked first by the consultant, was sidelined in favour of Molupe Pheko, who insiders claim was flagged by a referee as potentially unprepared for the challenging role.
If true, the decision raises eyebrows over the LTDC board’s commitment to professionalism and accountability.
“The storm that we see is resistance to those changes that we wanted out of the CEO. The recruitment was above board. No one was entitled to be appointed on the basis of points,” Mahlohomola told Newsday this week in a WhatsApp text.
He added: “The board had to use various stages of assessment to choose the best candidate, not to rubber stamp an automatic selection made by machines.”
He explained that the Directorate on Corruption and Economic Offences (DCEO) had been invited to investigate.
“Let us be open for the outcome. If it found no wrongdoing, let us say so. If there is anything wrong, then appropriate action will ensue,” he vowed.
Speaking to this publication last week, ‘Mamolemo Maleke, the board’s secretary, emphasised that reports suggesting Ramafikeng had been ranked first, with Pheko second, were categorically unfounded.
“That is utterly false,” Maleke declared. “I can assure you, with my head held high, that such rankings are incorrect. It is equally untrue that any referee questioned Mr. Pheko’s readiness for the CEO position. I personally reviewed the final report from the recruitment consultancy, and there was no such assertion.”
Maleke’s testimonial stood in stark contrast to that of Moshe Mosaase, the former Principal Secretary (PS) of the Ministry of Tourism, who presided over the LTDC board when the recruitment process commenced.
Mosaase confirmed to Newsday last week: “Mr. Sehlabaka Ramafikeng was indeed ranked first, with Mr. Pheko coming in second.” Mosaase added that he could not recall the names of the third candidate, though he noted that the individual currently serves as the acting CEO of the Basotho Enterprise Development Corporation (BEDCO).
He further elaborated that he was a member of the Human Resource and Operations sub-committee – responsible for overseeing the recruitment – though he was not its chair.
He clarified that by the time the board reached its final decision and appointed Pheko, he had already been reassigned to another ministry and was no longer board chair.
While she remained guarded in her interview with Newsday last week, citing a non-disclosure agreement she had signed with her client, LTDC, consultant Limpho Nchepe-Motanyane, emphasised that the consultancy only provides recommendations, which are not binding on the client.
“We compiled a report with recommendations and submitted it to the client. What they choose to do with it is entirely their decision,” she explained.
In its previous publication, Newsday emphasised the importance of accessing the report, arguing that as a publicly funded institution, the LTDC’s CEO appointment process should be subject to public scrutiny in the interest of transparency.
As a democratic kingdom, Lesotho is expected to uphold transparency and accountability across all state institutions. If the LTDC board had valid reasons for diverging from the consultancy’s recommendations, those reasons remain undisclosed.
Public institutions must justify their decisions when departing from established selection processes, particularly in cases where a seemingly more qualified candidate has been overlooked. Transparency in such matters is essential to maintaining public trust.
Mahlomola this week declined to provide Newsday with a copy of the consultant’s report, citing confidentiality.
“Some documents are confidential, especially those that concern people’s information, specifically psychometric results and other individual ratings of some people. You would have to secure a court order to get them,” he said.
“Earlier in the recruitment process, DCEO investigated the process and expressed their opinion. It would help to find what DCEO uncovered in their investigation. They have powers to access confidential documents,” he added.
He emphasised that the end result of the recruitment process is the board.
“It had recommendations from consultants and made its decision. This was done within the law. The board has a final say. Not the consultant. What the consultant does is to recommend. And they do not come with one name, they bring 3 best candidates.”
Section 14 (1) of the Lesotho constitution, titled; freedom of expression, states that every person shall be entitled to, and (except with his own consent) shall not be hindered in his enjoyment of, freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinions without interference, freedom to receive ideas and information without interference, freedom to communicate ideas and information without interference (whether the communication be to the public generally or to any person or class of persons) and freedom from interference with his correspondence.
However, subsection (2) states that nothing contained in or done under the authority of any law shall be held to be inconsistent with or in contravention of Section14 to the extent that the law in question makes provision:
- In the interests of defence, public safety, public order, public morality or public health; or
- For the purpose of protecting the reputations, rights and freedoms of other persons or the private lives of persons concerned in legal proceedings, preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, maintaining the authority and independence of the courts, or regulating the technical administration or the technical operation of telephony, telegraphy, posts, wireless broadcasting or television; or
- For the purpose of imposing restrictions upon public officers.
It further stipulates that a person cannot rely on any such law in judicial proceedings unless they can demonstrate to the court that the law or action taken does not unnecessarily limit the freedom guaranteed in subsection (1), and that the limitation is justified in a democratic society for the purposes outlined in subsection (2) (a), (b), or (c).
There is no legal authority that the PS has invoked to justify his refusal to provide Newsday or its reporter with a copy of the report.
