The Quiet Unravelling: How Lesotho’s Governance Architecture Is Being Dismantled One Dismissal at a Time
An ESG analysis of institutional risk in Lesotho’s public administration — and why the arbitrary removal of Principal Secretaries signals a strategic threat to investment, stability, and the rule of law across Southern Africa.
“`There is a quiet shift underway in Lesotho’s public administration. It is not written into law, not debated in Parliament, and not formally announced. Yet it is becoming visible in practice: the increasingly casual removal of Principal Secretaries (PSs), sometimes on the basis of suspicion rather than structured process.
On the surface, it may appear as decisive leadership. But through an ESG lens — particularly the “G” in Environmental, Social, and Governance — this trend signals something far more consequential: the erosion of institutional governance discipline. And once governance weakens, everything else follows.
Governance Is Not About Outcomes — It Is About Process
In strong systems, governance is not measured by who gets removed, but how decisions are made. As the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has noted in its principles of public governance, the quality of public institutions is a key determinant of long-term economic performance. This is not an abstract ideal — it is a measurable reality that shapes how capital flows, how projects are completed, and how citizens experience the state.
Principal Secretaries occupy a unique position in Lesotho’s state architecture. They are the accounting officers of ministries. They ensure continuity beyond political cycles. They anchor policy execution and fiscal discipline. Their removal, therefore, is not a routine HR matter. It is a governance event.
When dismissals begin to bypass formal disciplinary procedures, institutional oversight through bodies such as the Public Service Commission, and the foundational principles of natural justice, governance shifts from rules-based to discretion-based. That is the beginning of institutional risk.
The ESG Risk Lens: What Investors and Institutions See
“Investors are no longer satisfied with promises of stability. They want evidence of institutional resilience — systems that function regardless of who holds political power.”— Sovereign Risk Analysts, Development Finance Institutions
Globally, ESG frameworks are used by investors, development finance institutions, and sovereign lenders to assess whether a country is predictable, stable, and investable. Within ESG, governance risk includes arbitrary decision-making, weak institutional independence, and the politicisation of administrative roles. The dismissal of senior civil servants in Lesotho without due process triggers multiple governance red flags.
If PSs can be removed at will, decision-making authority shifts from institutions to individuals, and formal structures become symbolic rather than functional. As former World Bank governance specialist Daniel Kaufmann has argued, the rule of law is not a luxury for developed economies — it is the foundation on which any other development goal must rest.
PSs are custodians of long-term policy execution. Frequent or arbitrary removals lead to disruptions in project implementation, loss of institutional memory, and inconsistent policy direction — translating directly into execution risk and inflated costs of doing business in Lesotho.
When governance becomes discretionary, rules can be bent and enforcement becomes selective. The African Development Bank noted in its 2023 governance outlook that unpredictability is the single greatest deterrent to private investment — a verdict Lesotho cannot afford to confirm.
If PSs believe they can be dismissed without due process, they become risk-averse, prioritise political survival over professional judgment, and avoid necessary but difficult decisions. The most capable public servants — those with options — quietly exit.
Governance vs Political Control: A Dangerous Convergence
There is always tension between political leadership and administrative independence. That tension is normal and, in healthy democracies, productive. But when the line collapses and administrative roles become extensions of political power, governance begins to mutate into patronage.
“Political systems that cannot separate administrative authority from partisan loyalty are systems that will eventually consume themselves.”— Prof. Nqosa Mahao, Constitutional Scholar, Southern African Governance Reforms
Lesotho has been here before. The institutional failures that accompanied successive government collapses in prior decades were not sudden. They were the accumulated result of small, repeated deviations from process that gradually became normal. In a patronage-driven system, loyalty replaces competence, compliance replaces accountability, and discretion replaces law.
The Constitutional Contradiction
Lesotho’s governance framework is not designed for arbitrary removals. The Public Service Commission exists precisely to depoliticise appointments and discipline. Administrative law principles — recognised in Lesotho’s courts and drawn from the Kingdom’s constitutional heritage — require fairness, reason, and due process before any adverse decision affecting a public servant.
The emerging practice, however, suggests a drift toward informal power overriding formal structure. This is not merely a legal issue, though it is that too. It is a governance credibility problem. And credibility, once lost in institutional contexts, is extraordinarily difficult to recover.
ESG Implications Beyond Government
Governance failures in the public sector do not remain contained. They spill over into state-owned enterprises, public procurement systems, and regulatory bodies. If senior officials can be removed without process, procurement decisions become more vulnerable, oversight weakens, and corruption risks increase.
“Corruption is not just a symptom of weak governance. It is its logical conclusion.”— Transparency International, Sub-Saharan Governance Trends Analysis
When the precedent is set at the top of the civil service hierarchy, it reverberates throughout every institution beneath it. In ESG terms, this elevates the sovereign risk premium, raises the cost of capital, and tightens development financing constraints at precisely the moment Lesotho needs investment to drive economic transformation.
The Long-Term Cost: Invisible, but Severe
The immediate effect of dismissing a PS may seem minimal. A replacement is appointed, work continues, headlines fade. But the cumulative effect is structural. Institutions lose authority. Rules lose meaning. Confidence erodes. Over time, the state transitions from rules-based governance to personality-driven governance.
“Countries do not fall into dysfunction overnight. They drift there, one compromised institution at a time.”— Dambisa Moyo, Economist & Author
A Governance Reset Is Needed
If this trajectory continues, Lesotho risks embedding a precedent that will outlive any single administration. Reversal requires clarity on three fronts.
Three Pillars of Governance Recovery
- Reaffirm the Public Service Commission. Its institutional authority must be made visible, respected, and operationally central — not ceremonially acknowledged.
- Codify dismissal procedures for PSs with clarity and enforce them without exception. Ambiguity is not neutrality; it is an invitation to abuse.
- Restore the line between political leadership and administrative execution. Political leaders set direction. Administrative officers execute. Blurring these roles does not strengthen the state — it hollows it out.
Final Assessment
Governance does not collapse overnight. It erodes through small, repeated deviations from process that gradually become normal. The dismissal of Principal Secretaries without due process may appear tactical in the moment. It may even be defended as necessary. But through an ESG lens, it signals something deeper: a system slowly moving away from rules and toward discretion.
“A nation’s governance is only as strong as its weakest institutional safeguard.”— Kofi Annan, Former United Nations Secretary-General
For any country seeking investment, stability, and long-term growth, that is not just a governance issue. It is a strategic risk.
“`

