A quiet but consequential power struggle is unfolding at the heart of government, after Prime Minister Sam Matekane reportedly blocked an attempt by his own minister to force administrative action against a senior official facing serious criminal allegations.
At the centre of the dispute is Mpopo Tsoele, Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Local Government, Chieftainship, Home Affairs and Police — whose position has become a flashpoint in what insiders describe as a growing breakdown of trust within Cabinet.
A minister’s demand, ignored
On 27 January 2026, the Director of Passport Services, Mpiko Rafono, and his co-accused, former Acting Commissioner of Refugees Ms Nthatisi Thabane, appeared in court on charges of fraud and corruption. The gravity of those charges — tied directly to the integrity of Lesotho’s travel documents and citizenship systems — prompted Minister Lebona Lephema (MP) to act.
According to a confidential ministerial letter dated 26 March 2026 and now in circulation, Lephema says he gave the Permanent Secretary clear verbal instructions to place Rafono on administrative leave immediately after the January court appearance, and to initiate a formal disciplinary process in terms of the Public Service Act and its Disciplinary Code.
“Given the seriousness of the charges and the position that Mr Rafono holds in the Ministry, which poses harm or threat to the integrity of our travel documents and citizenship, I immediately gave you clear verbal instructions to put him on administrative leave while you start the process that would see Mr Rafono given a fair hearing in terms of the Public Service Act and its Disciplinary Code thereto.”
A letter placing Rafono on administrative leave was drafted and given to Tsoele for signature on 6 February 2026. It was never signed.
Then, on 12 February 2026, the Basotho nation woke to reports in the Lesotho Times that Rafono and his co-accused had been charged with additional counts — attempted fraud and corruption linked to the unlawful issuance of refugee certificates. Still, no administrative action followed.
In his letter, Lephema is direct: Tsoele has “ignored, refused, or neglected” to carry out ministerial instructions. He demanded written reasons by close of business on 27 March 2026.
“To date you have ignored/refused/neglected to carry out my instruction as the Minister in charge of the Ministry.” Minister Lephema’s letter to PS Tsoele, 26 March 2026
Matekane’s hand in the standoff
Multiple sources with direct knowledge of the matter say Prime Minister Matekane refused a prior request by Lephema to remove Tsoele from his position entirely — a refusal that appears to have emboldened the Permanent Secretary’s inaction.
While ministers are politically accountable for their portfolios, Permanent Secretaries operate within a more complex administrative framework, typically requiring alignment with the Prime Minister’s office before removal. In this case, that alignment collapsed.
“The instruction was clear from the Prime Minister — no further action. What followed was an attempt to push anyway, but it did not go through.” Source with knowledge of internal discussions
The result: Tsoele remains in post despite the escalating pressure, and the administrative process against Rafono remains stalled.
Confidence in Lephema said to be waning
Beyond the immediate dispute, sources close to Cabinet suggest this is not an isolated disagreement. Prime Minister Matekane is said to be increasingly losing confidence in Lephema, particularly over the handling of politically sensitive matters within the ministry.
The passport and refugee services scandal has drawn significant public scrutiny. But insiders say the internal management of the crisis — and the minister’s approach to resolving it — has further strained relations at the top.
“There is concern about judgment. Not just on this issue, but on how political risks are being managed.” Senior source familiar with Cabinet dynamics
Tsoele fires back — citing the law
On the same day he received Lephema’s demand letter, Permanent Secretary Tsoele responded in writing. His reply — Ref: LCHAP/ADM/5, dated 26 March 2026 — is measured in tone but pointed in substance, mounting a legal defence against what he frames as procedurally defective instructions.
Tsoele opens by affirming his “full commitment to working collaboratively” with the minister’s office and to upholding the rule of law — but immediately plants a flag on the statutory framework governing his conduct.
“In terms of Section 15 of the Public Service Act, 2005, the Principal Secretary is vested with responsibility for the efficient management, control and discipline of officers within the Ministry. This responsibility is further reinforced by Section 17 of the same Act, which designates the Principal Secretary as the Chief Accounting Officer, thereby imposing a legal duty to ensure that all administrative actions are lawful, procedurally sound, and capable of withstanding scrutiny under the law.”
Tsoele further invokes Part IX of the Public Service Regulations, 2008, which he says requires that disciplinary action be grounded in evidence — implicitly casting doubt on whether the minister’s verbal instruction met that threshold.
The argument is significant. By anchoring his response in the Public Service Act and Regulations, Tsoele is not simply defying his minister — he is asserting that his statutory duties as Principal Secretary and Chief Accounting Officer supersede a verbal ministerial direction, and that any administrative action he takes must be capable of withstanding legal scrutiny.
In effect, Tsoele’s position is that the minister instructed him to act; the law requires him to act properly. Where those two imperatives conflict, he sides with the law.
The questions this raises
- Can a minister enforce accountability if the Prime Minister blocks removal of a Permanent Secretary?
- Does a PS’s duty as Chief Accounting Officer allow him to override a ministerial verbal instruction?
- What happens when executive authority sends contradictory signals to the civil service?
- What message does inaction send about the handling of officials facing serious criminal charges?
- Will Matekane formally clarify his position — or allow the standoff to persist?
For now, the answer appears to be a bureaucratic stalemate. The minister says the Permanent Secretary defied him. The Permanent Secretary says the law required him to act carefully, not quickly. The Prime Minister has said nothing publicly. And the official at the centre of it all — accused of fraud linked to Lesotho’s most sensitive documents — remains in post.
This is no longer just about one Permanent Secretary. It is about control, credibility, and cohesion at the very top of government — and increasingly, those three are no longer aligned.
