Saturday, June 21, 2025
10.9 C
Maseru

Who Holds Whom Accountable? Reassessing the Roles of Ministers and PAC in Lesotho’s Democracy

Business

Newsday
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.


By Theko Tlebere

As a Mosotho who deeply cares about the direction of our country, I felt unsettled while listening to the recent National Assembly debates, particularly those regarding the handling of the Public Officers’ Defined Contribution Pension Fund. Like many citizens, I found myself questioning: Who holds our public officials accountable and how? This issue transcends mere policy or procedure, it confronts our understanding of trust, responsibility, and the role of institutions in protecting the future, not just for civil servants nearing retirement, but for every Mosotho who believes in the promise of democracy. At the heart of this matter is a critical yet often overlooked issue, the separation of powers between the executive and the legislature, and how this balance or lack thereof affects governance in Lesotho.

Lesotho follows a parliamentary model where ministers are drawn from elected members of the National Assembly and appointed members of Senate. While this design is common in parliamentary systems, such as the Westminster model of the United Kingdom, it creates significant challenges when the same individuals are responsible for both executing and scrutinising policy. When a minister, who heads a ministry, returns to Parliament to discuss reports questioning their ministry’s performance, their objectivity is inherently compromised.

Furthermore, if that minister holds considerable influence within the ruling coalition, their presence may skew parliamentary discussions, particularly on sensitive or controversial issues. This overlap weakens Parliament’s ability to serve as a genuine check on executive power. As a result, the concept of accountability blurs, ministries are more often defended than questioned, and debates shift towards political loyalty rather than public interest.

Central to this discussion is the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), a key component of the National Assembly tasked with examining public fund usage. The PAC is crucial for ensuring taxpayer money is spent efficiently and as intended. However, concerns voiced by ministers and some members of the public regarding the scope and tone of recent PAC reports are valid. When the PAC issues explicit recommendations to dismiss officialsor frames its reports in an overtly political manner, it jeopardises its impartiality. This can lead to perceptions that the committee is more focused on political gains, particularly for the opposition that often dominates such committees, rather than on financial accountability. This perceived overreach undermines public confidence in the PAC’s objectivity. The committee’s fundamental responsibility should be to track financial flows, to identify inefficiencies, investigate discrepancies, and recommend actions that enhance public administration. When recommendations stray into personnel decisions or policy directives, it raises questions about the committee’s alignment with its constitutional mandate.

The Westminster system provides valuable lessons that should be adapted carefully. In the UK, the PAC is noted for its non-partisan approach, concentrating on value-for-money audits and collaborating closely with professional auditors like the Auditor General’s office. It typically refrains from recommending individual terminations, opting instead to highlight systemic failures and propose institutional reforms. Additionally, ministers in the UK face extensive scrutiny from both Parliament and an engaged civil society, benefiting from access to independent expertise that bolsters their investigations. These checks and balances thrive within a strong political culture that respects institutional boundaries.

Lesotho must confront challenging questions about the future of its governance. First, should we restructure ministerial appointments to enable professionals from outside Parliament to lead ministries, thereby introducing both expertise and independence from political pressures? This reform would allow Parliament to focus on oversight without conflicts of interest. Second, should we enhance the institutional capacity and neutrality of the PACby investing in technical staff, research analysts, and audit professionals to ground its work in evidence and lessen its susceptibility to political interpretations? Finally, both ministers and MPs must reaffirm their commitment to public service and institutional integrity. Ministers should acknowledge the PAC’s role within the framework of democratic oversight, while the PAC must uphold its credibility by working strictly within its legislative confines.

For Lesotho’s democracy to flourish, Parliament, the Executive, and oversight committees must understand and respect their distinct roles. Political maturity necessitates moving beyond a defensive approach to politics, focusing instead on a system where reports and debates are centered around facts, performance, and reform, rather than party rivalry. It is essential to educate young people, future leaders, and the public about these dynamics, not to dissuade them but to inspire them to create a stronger, more principled Lesotho.Governance is about institutions, not personalities. When institutions function as intended, the entire nation reaps the benefits. The future is NOW!

- Advertisement -spot_img
- Advertisement -spot_img

Latest article

Send this to a friend