Maseru
A public statement issued by Minister of Public Works and Transport, Matjato Moteane, following storm damage at Moshoeshoe I International Airport has reignited questions raised months earlier by Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee (PAC), particularly around conflict of interest, procurement irregularities, and the technical competence of the appointed contractor.
In a Facebook post published this week, Moteane gave a detailed operational update on damage sustained at the airport, estimating that about 30 percent of the roof sheeting would need replacement, that the project would likely be delayed by eight weeks, and that insurers had already been engaged. He further stated that the contractor was clearing the site and that the airport would reopen in time for scheduled flights later the same day.
Notably, the statement was framed in a manner more typical of a project manager or contractor than a political overseer, with the minister offering technical assessments, timelines, material availability projections and assurances regarding insurance claims.
This posture has drawn renewed scrutiny when read alongside the findings of the PAC report on the rehabilitation of Moshoeshoe I International Airport, which explicitly warned of blurred lines between political authority, procurement oversight, and contractor involvement.
PAC flagged conflict and lack of capacity
In its report, the PAC found that the M184 million airport rehabilitation contract was awarded under irregular procurement processes, including the misuse of an Expression of Interest procedure for a project that far exceeded the M50 million threshold requiring open international tendering.
More critically, the Committee established that the successful bidder, LSP Construction, relied heavily on the profiles of other firms to demonstrate capacity, despite admitting before the Committee that it had no prior experience in airport rehabilitation projects anywhere . PAC concluded that, without these attached profiles, LSP would not have met the basic requirements of the Expression of Interest.
The PAC also raised serious concerns about conflict of interest, noting that tender documents submitted by LSP included entities previously associated with Minister Moteane, in apparent violation of Section 59 of the Public Procurement Act 2023, which requires public officials to avoid both actual and perceived conflicts of interest.
Storm damage raises new questions
While extreme weather events cannot be attributed solely to contractor performance, the scale of damage described by the Minister has prompted questions about design choices, materials, and workmanship, especially in light of PAC’s finding that no independent aviation engineering consultant was appointed to oversee the project and that supervision was left to an inexperienced architect within the Ministry.
PAC warned that this lack of technical oversight exposed the project to risks of poor workmanship, cost escalation, and delays, precisely the scenario now unfolding.
The Committee further observed that multiple prior studies on the airport, including those by ICT, ACSA and LTE, had already addressed design and structural issues, making the repetition of work under the current contract a waste of public funds rather than an evidence-based intervention.
PAC recommendations now appear prescient
Among its strongest recommendations, the PAC called for the termination of the LSP contract, re-tendering under an open international process, disciplinary action against senior ministry officials, and further investigation by law enforcement agencies.
The Minister’s latest statement, rather than settling concerns, appears to reinforce the PAC’s central argument: that the project has been compromised by poor governance, weak separation of roles, and questionable contractor capacity.
For PAC members, the episode may serve as validation of their warnings that ignoring procurement law and technical best practice does not merely create abstract governance risks, but produces tangible consequences in the form of delays, damage, and escalating costs.
As Parliament considers the next steps on the PAC report, attention is now likely to focus on whether the recommendations will finally be implemented, or whether the airport rehabilitation will continue under the same cloud of controversy that the Committee so carefully documented.
