Lesotho Standards Institute project in disarray
- Minister admits structural woes after skipping critical environmental assessment
- AfDB withdraws funding over ESIA violation, procurement concerns, as construction proceeds amidst legal doubts and water woes
TEBOHO KHATEBE MOLEFI and
MOTSAMAI MOKOTJO
MASERU – In a startling admission, Minister of Trade and Industry, Mokhethi Shelile, has conceded to significant structural challenges plaguing the construction of the M200 million Lesotho Standards Institute (LSI) head office at Ha Tikoe, near Maseru.
This revelation comes amidst a burgeoning scandal centred on the government’s deliberate commencement of the project without conducting a mandatory Environmental Social Impact Assessment (ESIA), a fundamental international requirement that also flouts Lesotho’s own regulations and the strict funding conditions of the African Development Bank (AfDB).
The AfDB, initially the project’s primary financier, withdrew its support earlier this year citing the glaring absence of the ESIA, alleged procurement mismanagement and a severe communication breakdown with the government.
This forced the reallocation of funding from strained national coffers, as confirmed in Finance Minister Dr Retšelisitsoe Matlanyane’s 2025/2026 budget speech, where she emphasized operationalizing the LSI for standards development, testing and certification to improve market access.
An ESIA is not merely a bureaucratic hurdle, it is a critical planning tool mandated globally for major infrastructure projects. Its purpose is to systematically identify, predict, evaluate and mitigate potential adverse environmental and social impacts before construction begins.
This includes assessing effects on water resources, ecosystems, local communities, cultural heritage and public health. Crucially, it provides a framework for stakeholder consultation and ensures projects adhere to sustainable development principles.
Minister Shelile’s public dismissal of the ESIA’s relevance to the current problems has ignited fierce criticism and exposed a concerning disregard for established norms.
Speaking to Public Eye, Shelile downplayed the necessity, stating that “ESIA does not coincide with geotechnical matters. The project followed procedures established by the Ministry of Development Planning… you need to verify whether an ESIA is necessary.”
He further implied that meeting government-set conditions superseded those mandated by the AfDB, the project’s intended funder.
This perspective stands in stark contrast to international best practices and the explicit requirements of institutions like the AfDB. The bank, bound by its own rigorous environmental and social safeguards policies aligned with international standards, made the ESIA a fundamental prerequisite for releasing funds.
The government’s failure to conduct it represents a clear breach of both AfDB conditions and widely accepted global protocols for responsible development.
The AfDB’s decision to pull funding in earlier this year in April was not abrupt. The bank had repeatedly raised serious concerns regarding governance, accountability and specifically the absence of the ESIA and a valid building permit.
Official communications cited “inadequacies by the Lesotho government in adhering to requisite regulations,” notably the failure to conduct the ESIA and secure the permit before project initiation. The bank also highlighted a persistent lack of clear information from the Ministries of Finance and Trade regarding the project’s funding, social and environmental compliance.
Compounding these issues were allegations of procurement mismanagement and a documented breakdown in communication between the AfDB and the government.
This toxic combination rendered the partnership untenable for the bank, leading to its formal withdrawal – a significant blow to the project’s credibility and a stark warning about adherence to governance standards.
Despite the funding crisis and the absence of foundational assessments, construction at Ha Tikoe commenced. Minister Shelile revealed the immediate consequence “the contractor has started digging but found substantial water in the foundation… this implies that the digging may need adjustments.”
This discovery of significant subsurface water during excavation is precisely the type of risk a comprehensive ESIA, coupled with detailed geotechnical surveys typically informed or required by the ESIA process, aims to identify before ground is broken. Experts have seized upon this development as evidence of flawed planning and inadequate oversight.
An engineer, speaking anonymously due to the sensitivity of the issue, directly challenged Minister Shelile’s understanding.
“His comments indicate a lack of awareness regarding the purpose of an ESIA. If water has emerged during construction, it questions the initial planning and oversight.
An ESIA is not solely about environmental assessment, it involves understanding the proximity of natural resources like wells and reservoirs that may impact local communities or be impacted by the construction itself. Moisture gauges and hydrological assessments should have been established before any excavation began.”
Another expert emphasized the procedural failure: “How can moisture levels and water table impacts be properly evaluated without an ESIA being conducted ahead of foundation work? This is putting the cart before the horse and now they face costly delays and redesigns.”
The unfolding scandal has triggered deep concern within the National Assembly.
Sello Hakane, Chairperson of the Economic and Development Cluster, expressed disbelief at Minister Shelile’s nonchalance towards the ESIA requirement.
“Such assessments are mandated universally. It is inconceivable to contemplate a project devoid of this crucial evaluation.” Hakane announced his intention to summon the Principal Secretary for the trade ministry, Palesa Matobako, to provide urgent clarity on the project’s mismanagement.
Echoing Hakane’s concerns, Mokhothu Makhalanyane, Chairperson of the Committee of Chairpersons, voiced disappointment over the “blatant neglect of essential pre-construction protocols” and called for heightened parliamentary oversight.
The unified parliamentary reaction underscores the gravity of the perceived governance failures surrounding the LSI project.
The absence of an ESIA is not the only legal irregularity casting a shadow over the Ha Tikoe site. Evidence strongly suggests the project also commenced without securing the legally required building permit, another key factor cited by the AfDB for its withdrawal.
More alarmingly, the Ministry of Trade appears to have potentially contravened the Building Control Act of 1995. Public Works Minister, Neo Matjato Moteane, revealed in a previous interview with Public Eye that his ministry – the designated building authority for government projects – had yet to receive any documentation related to the LSI construction from the trade ministry.
This failure directly violates the Act. Section 18 (1) explicitly states: “No person shall, without the prior approval in writing of the building authority in question, commence any building op
eration.” Subsection (2) stipulates that contravention is an offence punishable by penalties prescribed in regulations.
Furthermore, Section 18 (5) mandates that “the Ministry of Public Works, in respect of all government buildings, submit all plans, specifications, documents, or information as may be required under this Act to the building authority in whose jurisdiction building operations will be carried out.”
The Ministry of Trade, as the project owner, has the ultimate responsibility for ensuring these submissions are made and approvals granted before work begins. The Public Works Minister’s confirmation of receiving no documents strongly indicates this legal requirement was ignored.
The Building Control Act and associated E-Regulations outline a rigorous 24-step process required before initiating major construction. This process involves multiple stakeholders, including the Land Administration Authority, Maseru City Council, Water and Sewerage Company, Lesotho Electricity Corporation, Maseru Fire Brigade and the Roads Directorate.
The commencement of construction without an ESIA, without a building permit and seemingly without engaging this multi-stakeholder approval process as mandated by law, suggests a systemic bypassing of the country’s established regulatory framework for major construction projects. This raises profound questions about accountability and due process within the government departments involved.
The LSI headquarters project, intended to bolster national quality infrastructure, finds itself mired in controversy and potential illegality. Minister Shelile’s admission of structural challenges due to subsurface water is a direct consequence of the decision to proceed without the fundamental safeguard of an ESIA and proper geotechnical investigations.
The AfDB’s withdrawal serves as a powerful indictment of the government’s failure to adhere to international funding standards and its own domestic laws. The apparent violation of the Building Control Act, the lack of a building permit and the bypassing of essential stakeholder consultations paint a picture of a project rushed forward without due diligence.
Expert criticism and parliamentary alarm highlight the technical and governance deficiencies at play. As construction continues using taxpayer funds diverted from the national budget, fundamental questions remain unanswered – who authorized the commencement without the ESIA and permit? Why was the legally mandated process ignored? What are the true environmental and social risks at Ha Tikoe, and what will be the ultimate cost – financial, reputational, and legal – of this apparent disregard for established standards and procedures?
The credibility of the LSI itself, an entity meant to uphold standards, is now paradoxically undermined by the very process of constructing its home. The government faces mounting pressure to provide transparent answers and demonstrate a renewed commitment to accountability and the rule of law in public project management.
The future of the LSI building, and the standards it is meant to represent, hangs in the balance.
