Minister accuses individuals of bribing him for posts
Denies money laundering allegations, vows transparency as critics question political-linked charities
MOTSAMAI MOKOTJO
MASERU – Foreign minister, Lejone Mpotjoane, has made explosive claims that individuals attempted to bribe him by donating to his Hololo Development Foundation in exchange for diplomatic appointments.
Mpotjoane’s statement came in response to mounting criticism alleging that foundations tied to high-ranking officials – including his own – operate as money-laundering fronts and would collapse once their political patrons lose power.
Critics point to the downfall of the ‘Maesaiah Thabane’s Foundation after her husband, former Prime Minister Motsoahae Thabane, left office.
Currently, foundations led by Prime Minister Ntsokoane Matekane, Deputy Prime Minister Justice Nthomeng Majara and Communications Minister Nthati Moorosi have also drawn scrutiny.
“Ours was not established to launder money, and it won’t vanish if I leave office,” Mpotjoane told Public Eye this week.
“If you track Hololo’s work, you will see it’s a vehicle for community development, bridging gaps in roads, electricity and water where government delays persist. We draft proposals for donors; there’s no diversion of public funds.”
The foundation supports youth programmes, students, community organizations, and soccer clubs.
“How is this money laundering?” he challenged.
Mpotjoane revealed that individuals had linked donations to job requests claiming that “some said, ‘I want to work at Foreign Affairs,’ or ‘Renew my spouse’s embassy contract, and I will donate.’”
“But this ministry has minimal procurement needs, no one can buy influence here,” he emphasized rejecting such overtures, calling them a pre-existing “modus operandi” in politics.
“We are ready to open our books. Past allegations led nowhere.”
The controversy echoes academic concerns. Scholar Brian Galle in his ‘Charities in Politics: A Reappraisal’ warns that mixing politics and charity risks “diseconomies” – complex agency costs, reduced donor trust, and skewed decision-making.
Galle questions whether lobbying and charity should coexist in one organization, noting the “perils of managerial distraction” and “higher agency costs” when entities juggle unrelated missions.
Critics argue that tax subsidies for charities disproportionately benefit the wealthy, while political scientists oppose “unlimited spending” loopholes.
The debate underscores tensions as the country’s leaders navigate philanthropy’s thin line between public service and political leverage.
