Who calls the shots between Ministers and Principal Secretaries in Lesotho?

Theko Tlebere

Lately, I have decided to write about issues that I find essential among the Basotho nation. For the good part of it I will be looking at issues from a scholarly perspective so that our arguments teach rather than make a point. The issue of who calls the shots between Ministers and Principal Secretaries is debated in many platforms, with many people so opinionated that our youth end up confused and not knowing what is right. This week I want us to look at the constitution of Lesotho as amended in order to understand what is expected from both ministers and principal secretaries. I know people like Ntate Tlohang Sekhamane and Ntate Tsukutlane Au who have been both principal secretaries and ministers at some point may give us a practical explanation. But for now we shall simply look at what the constitution says.

The determination of the authority between Ministers and Principal Secretaries in Lesotho must be ascertained through constitutional provisions, specifically as amended, rather than through prevailing political customs, party hierarchies, or standard governance protocols. Upon examination of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution Act, 2025, the legal framework becomes evident: Ministers possess political direction and control over their respective ministries, whereas Principal Secretaries, now designated as Permanent Secretaries, serve as the administrative, executive, and accounting authorities of those ministries. The law thus establishes a dual yet distinct authority, rather than a mere master-servant dynamic.

A significant aspect to note is the alteration in legal terminology. The 2025 amendment repeals the former section 96, replacing it with a new provision regarding the Government Secretary. It further repeals the prior section 97 and substitutes it with a provision concerning “Permanent Secretaries”. While the term Principal Secretaries may still be utilised in everyday discourse, the revised constitutional text now refers to them as Permanent Secretaries. The accompanying Government Notice explicitly states that the Act designates Principal Secretaries as Permanent Secretaries under the Government Secretary and clarifies that their appointments shall be made by the Public Service Commission, rather than by the Prime Minister as was previously practiced.

This modification is not merely superficial; it fundamentally alters the legal framework governing executive administration. Under the amended section 96, a Government Secretary is established within the public service as the head of the civil service. The Government Secretary is appointed by the Prime Minister from a shortlist of three candidates recommended by the Public Service Commission through a transparent, merit-based, fair, and competitive process. The Government Secretary is appointed for an initial term of five years, which may be renewed for an additional five years contingent upon satisfactory performance. Consequently, the leadership of the civil service is no longer subject to arbitrary political discretion but is situated within a more structured constitutional process.

The most pertinent provision regarding the relationship between the Minister and the Permanent Secretary is articulated in the amended section 97. It delineates that a Permanent Secretary, as an office within the public service, is accountable for the supervision of a Government ministry, for which a Minister has been assigned the responsibility to exercise general direction and control. This provision encapsulates the distribution of power: the Minister retains “general direction and control,” while the Permanent Secretary is charged with “supervision” of the ministry. The law does not stipulate that the Minister personally supervises the ministry nor does it assert that the Permanent Secretary operates without ministerial guidance. It delineates two distinct roles: political direction and administrative supervision.

Thus, if the inquiry pertains to who holds political authority, the answer is the Minister. The Minister serves as the political head of the ministry, embodying government policy, Cabinet priorities, and political accountability. The Minister has the prerogative to determine the policy direction of the ministry, subject to the constraints of the Constitution, Acts of Parliament, Cabinet decisions, and available budgetary resources. For instance, a Minister may prioritise agricultural subsidies, health workforce reform, road infrastructure, school feeding programs, youth employment initiatives, or police reform, depending on the portfolio. This exemplifies the meaning of “general direction and control,” conferring genuine constitutional authority upon the Minister.

Conversely, if the question pertains to administrative authority and compliance, the answer is the Permanent Secretary. The amended section 97 designates the Permanent Secretary as the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Accounting Officer of the relevant ministry. These titles carry significant legal implications. A Chief Executive Officer is not merely an administrative clerk, nor is a Chief Accounting Officer simply a messenger for the Minister. The Permanent Secretary bears institutional responsibility for management, administration, public finance, internal controls, and lawful implementation. While a Minister may provide lawful policy direction, it is the duty of the Permanent Secretary to ensure that implementation adheres to legal standards.

This is where numerous political misunderstandings may arise within Lesotho. Certain Ministers may assume that their political seniority mandates that every administrative directive must be followed without question. Such an interpretation is not supported by the amended Constitution. “General direction and control” does not confer the authority to circumvent procurement legislation, manipulate appointments, authorise unlawful payments, interfere with technical recruitment processes, or instruct personnel to disregard financial controls. Should a Minister’s directive be unlawful, irregular, or beyond budgetary authority, the Permanent Secretary’s legal obligation is not one of blind compliance; rather, it is to safeguard lawful administration.

Conversely, some Permanent Secretaries may also misinterpret their role. Administrative supervision does not grant the Permanent Secretary political superiority over the Minister. A Permanent Secretary cannot obstruct lawful government policy solely due to personal disagreement with the Minister’s political priorities. The ministry exists to execute government policy within the confines of the law. Where the Minister issues lawful policy direction, the Permanent Secretary is required to translate that policy into actionable administrative measures, work plans, budgets, programs, and institutional procedures.

What then is the legal hierarchy of authority? At the political echelon, the Cabinet and Ministers establish policy. At the civil service level, the Government Secretary heads the civil service. At the ministry level, the Permanent Secretary supervises the ministry, serving as both Chief Executive Officer and Chief Accounting Officer. In terms of appointments, Permanent Secretaries are appointed by the Public Service Commission through a transparent, merit-based, fair, and competitive process, serving five-year terms that are renewable once upon satisfactory performance. This framework mitigates the perception that Permanent Secretaries are personal political representatives of individual Ministers.

The appointment issue holds significant importance. A line Minister does not possess the authority to appoint the Permanent Secretary. The amended Constitution delegates this responsibility to the Public Service Commission, which employs a merit-based selection process. Consequently, a Minister may collaborate with a Permanent Secretary, direct policy through that office, and hold the ministry politically accountable; however, the Minister does not possess ownership over that officer. The Permanent Secretary is a member of the public service, not the personal appointee of the Minister.

Practically speaking, the optimal understanding of the relationship can be summarised as follows: the Minister determines the policy objectives; the Permanent Secretary manages the legal execution of those objectives. The Minister articulates the government’s intended achievements, while the Permanent Secretary delineates how the ministry will implement that decision within the bounds of the Constitution, statutory law, budgetary allocations, procurement regulations, human resource policies, and public finance procedures. When both parties adhere to their respective roles, government functions effectively. When either party oversteps their jurisdiction, conflict ensues.

For Lesotho, this distinction transcends technicality; it is fundamental to the principles of constitutional governance. Ministries cannot operate effectively if Ministers are relegated to symbolic roles. Conversely, the public service cannot maintain its professionalism if Permanent Secretaries are treated as political subordinates. The law seeks equilibrium: democratic political leadership on one side and lawful professional administration on the other. This is the constitutional mandate. The future is NOW!

Newsday

Your Trusted Source for News and Insights in Lesotho!
At Newsday Media, we are passionate about delivering accurate, timely, and engaging news and multimedia content to our diverse audience. Founded with the vision of revolutionizing the media landscape in Lesotho, we have grown into a leading hybrid media company that blends traditional journalism with innovative digital platforms.