Curbing impunity in parly

MPs move to establish Accountability Committee to rein in errant ministers

‘MATHATO SEBOKA and

MOTSAMAI MOKOTJO

MASERU – Aimed at strengthening governance and restoring public trust, a cross-party proposal for the establishment of a dedicated Ministerial Accountability Committee is gaining traction within Parliament.

The initiative comes amid growing frustration from both lawmakers and citizens over a perceived culture of impunity among members of the executive who routinely evade parliamentary oversight – the new body is tasked with rigorously scrutinizing the promises and statements made by ministers on the floor of the House.

The committee’s creation, empowered under Standing Order 95 (2), is a direct response to mounting frustration among lawmakers over ministers’ perceived evasion and provision of inaccurate information during parliamentary questioning.

The motion, championed by Basotho Action Party (BAP) leader, Professor Nqosa Mahao, and seconded by Basotho National Party (BNP) leader, Machesetsa Mofomobe, received cross-party support, signalling a unified push for greater transparency.
The committee is granted sweeping authority to demand documents and hear evidence, liaise with government ministries and departments, scrutinize annual reports from public institutions and enforce attendance at its meetings under the Parliamentary Powers and Privileges Act of 1994.

For years, the National Assembly has grappled with the challenge of holding sitting ministers to account.

A common complaint from backbenchers and opposition members alike is the tendency for ministers to be absent during crucial question times, provide evasive or incomplete answers to parliamentary inquiries, or fail to implement directives and recommendations passed by the House.

This behaviour, critics argue, undermines the very principles of democratic accountability and the separation of powers.

“The current system has proven inadequate,” stated a prominent backbencher who wished to remain anonymous.

“Ministers can ignore summons, provide non-answers, and face no real consequence. This committee would be a game-changer, creating a formal, powerful mechanism to ensure the executive answers to the people’s representatives.”

The need for such a body has been highlighted by several recent incidents where ministries failed to submit reports on time, were accused of misallocating funds, or were unable to satisfactorily explain delays in critical national projects. Public trust in government institutions has often been a casualty of such episodes.

However, the path to establishing the committee is not without potential hurdles.

Some members of the executive have, reportedly, privately expressed concerns about the committee duplicating the work of existing bodies or overstepping its bounds into the operational domain of the government.

Constitutional experts suggest that for the committee to be effective, its powers must be clearly defined in the Standing Orders of Parliament and enjoy cross-party support to avoid being used as a political weapon.

The consequences for providing misleading information are severe. Under the Members of Parliament and Privileges Act of 1994, ministers found culpable could face fines from M500 to M1 000, imprisonment for six months to a year, or both.

As the debate continues in Maseru, the proposal represents a critical test for the country’s democracy. The establishment of a Ministerial Accountability Committee could mark a decisive step away from a past marred by political instability and towards a future where transparency, answerability and performance are the non-negotiable standards expected of those in high office.

For a nation eager for progress, it is a committee whose time may have finally come.