In this second part of the interview, Professor Nqosa Mahao explains why the Basotho Action Party (BAP) joined the government after initially working with the opposition in their attempt to push a vote of no confidence. He talks about the BAP’s revival and why he thinks people are ‘returning’ to the party after the election. He also chastises thepost for its coverage of his party’s affairs.

Q: What would you say have been the achievements of your party in its participation in the government so far?
A: My deputy has certainly raised the profile of tourism, sports and culture in ways that have not been done precedent to his coming into that ministry. The Ministry of Energy is entirely contingent on capital projects. We have set the targets and we are in the process of implementing those targets. That is to ensure that we grow the footprint of electricity generation in the country and hopefully, we will be self-sufficient, particularly in renewable energy. Several projects are ongoing in the districts.

Q: There has been talk of an imminent reshuffle in the government over the next three weeks or so and that you could be one of the targets. Have you heard of that?
A: Well, not officially.

Q: Informally?
A: Yeah, maybe, yes. I hear in some beer halls. Yeah.

Q: You don’t think there is any hint of the truth in there?
A: I don’t want to speculate.

Q: You were unhappy that thepost said “Mahao humiliated” because we said you were instructed by the prime minister to cancel your launch. What happened?
A: You wrote a lie. What happened is this. On a Sunday evening, I received a call from the Minister of Education and Training, Ntoi Rapapa, who is also MP for Mosalemane. He said he understood that I was going to his constituency on Wednesday. I was unaware of that. So I said I don’t know about that. When I got to the office the following day and inquired, I found that there was a programme where we were supposed to launch an electrification project in Mosalamane on Wednesday and the following day in Koro-Koro.
As you know, this was the time when we were very busy at parliament finalising the budget and those condition precedence bills (for the MCA compact). So the timing was just not right and I told the PS that he should have consulted me before fixing the dates. I said the decision, as a matter of fact, is mine and not yours. So I called off those two events. Now you guys are saying the Prime Minister ordered me to cancel them. I don’t know where you get that information from.

Q: No instructions from the prime minister?
A: No. That is why I said the cardinal principle of journalism is inquired on both sides.

Q: And they contacted you.
A: A certain Nkheli Liphoto (news editor) called me (Wednesday). I was driving from Bloemfontein and then he posed the same question and I said, no, it is not true. And then you go and publish exactly the opposite. Unethical behaviour by journalism which seems to be driving a particular agenda.

Q: Which agenda?
A: Usually journalists get embedded and become merchants of agendas designed by other people for their own purposes. And the way you have been very consistent in publishing a negative agenda without seeking clarification from our side says you have positioned yourself to a mode of portraying the BAP and its leader in poor light. You must be advised to refrain.

Q: Who is pushing the agenda?
A: You need to tell me who your handlers are.

Q: Let’s get to the party. Are you happy with the state of the party and where it’s heading?
A: I have no reason to be unduly concerned. There have been a bit of a ripples since January. Last Sunday we went to Leribe to meet the constituencies. After being briefed about the challenges, they are content with the reports and they cheered the leadership on. Yesterday we met constituencies in the Mafeteng district. Similarly, they were happy to be briefed and have committed to giving the leadership their full support. We have a programme of going around all the 10 districts within two months to communicate and interact with members. I am generally satisfied that the party remains intact.
We phased out that group led by our former general secretary (Lebohang Thotanyana). They have tried to set up their own outfit but it is in shambles now and has already split even before it started. I know because these are people that you protect and will not publish about them. The BAP is in reasonably good hands.

Q: And the numbers?
A: The numbers are growing. From January we are already at roughly 85 percent of the numbers that renewed in the previous year. So we hope the targets that we have set for ourselves in our action plan will be met.

Q: What was the target?
A: 25 000 card-carrying members.

Q: Is that new or renewals?
A: It is renewals and the new membership is flocking in.

Q: There was a time when you were at more than 100 000.
A: That was before the RFP. As of 2021, we were at 100 000 but which party was not affected by the advent of the RFP? Look at the total votes that we got, just under 30 000 in the last election. And so we think 25 000 is reasonable for card-carrying members.

Q: How do you claw back those numbers?
A: Part of the visits to the districts is to check if the structures are in good health, guide them to sort themselves out and embark on recruitment. We believe we will achieve the target or at least 80 percent of it. Last year, for the whole year, we only managed renewals and new recruits of up to 12 500. But as I tell you now we are almost at 10 500.
The way to understand it is that the overall political landscape in the country has changed and that creates opportunities for us to grow the BAP. It’s not like when people still had illusions of one sort or another. Everyone is becoming realistic and applying their minds as to which party seems to carry better solutions for the challenges the country is facing.

Q: And you are saying people are coming back to their senses and realising they probably made a mistake in the last elections?
A: Every election enables the electorate to rethink again.

Q: You are part of a government that people are rethinking about. It appears that many in the coalition are losing the numbers but you say you are gaining. What could be informing that?
A: We have always considered ourselves the true party of change, of transformation. We believe we didn’t do well in the past election because we were not resourced. Others who were better resourced were able to make a lot more noise. But as the situation settles down people are beginning to look more closely at the developments and many are saying they think the BAP should have been the right vehicle on which to put their mandate on.
So we are not surprised by this development. We knew it was going to happen. When we got into government we took a position that what will be important for us is to demonstrate our capacity to deliver in the ministries we would be heading.
Of course, we work under collective responsibility as a government but we must accept that, first and foremost, this remains an RFP government and we are only the maidens of that government. What is more important is more focus and concentration in the ministries we lead to demonstrate to the average voter that the BAP can perform when in government.

Q: At what point did you decide that it was okay to join the government?
A: Immediately after the election the public mood seemed to expect that the RFP would invite the BAP. But for their own reasons, they chose not to until they were in trouble and they approached us. We were a bit reluctant but we analysed the situation. Two things impelled us in the direction that we took.
One is that politics is beginning to lose its weight in the public mind and this is amply demonstrated by numbers. When we had our first general elections in 1993 almost 75 percent of registered voters turned up at the polling booths. In the 2017 election that figure had dropped to 46 percent and in this very last election it dropped to 37 percent. That says the majority of the citizens are saying they couldn’t care less about the so-called democracy, it is not working for us.
So there is massive discontent with the way democracy has impressed itself on the public mind. That is point number one. The second element we analysed is: what did the last elections tell us? The majority of the 37 percent that voted seemed to want change. And so you had a mood of despondency and side by side a mood of change.
We were part of that position not by our own design but by the decision of the electorate. And we went with the rest of the opposition. The interesting thing about Westminster democracy is that ruling parties must observe one cardinal rule which is to solidify their base in parliament. Unfortunately, in this country, ruling parties make a meal of that rule all the time.
The 2012 government collapsed within three years because they couldn’t take care of their base in parliament. The 2015 government collapsed within two years for the same reason. The 2017 government collapsed in 2020 precisely for the same reason. And the present government committed the same mistake literally within a year.
Once that happens it gives the opportunity to the opposition. It is not based on any principle. You lose the majority in the assembly and the opposition would want to take the bone from your mouth. And that is what the opposition did and we were part of that opposition because the ruling party or parties had solidified their base in the national assembly.
But then the problem was that on the issue of a changing mood prevailing in the country, the opposition parties didn’t come up with a vision that said we are repositioning ourselves to be part of a changed environment in the country. You more or less felt like it was a reversion to the status quo.

Q: Is that why you decided to join the government?
A: We decided we would rather be part of the mood for change. In any case, ours was a transformational programme. So we decided it was time that we throw our weight with the government. We were well aware that we may not agree on a number of issues with them but that is what coalitions are all about.

Q: What is the reaction from your former opposition? Were they shocked? Were they disappointed?
A: I’m sure they were disappointed. Here was an opportunity and they were about to grasp it.

Q: Are you saying they also wanted the same opportunity that you grabbed?
A: Well, two things were happening here. It was the opportunity to take over the government after the vote of confidence. But we are aware that a number of them were actually negotiating with the government. So any one of them could have moved to the other side. And so, yes, I’m sure they were disappointed. But even as we worked together we remained individual parties with individual interests.

Q: Were there issues of principle that were also part and parcel of the negotiation?
A: Yes, most definitely. If you look at the coalition agreement there is a clause that was inserted into that agreement at our behest.

Q: Which one is that?
A: I’m trying to remember how we formulated it but essentially to manage issues pertaining to conflict of interest in government affairs.

Q: Do you suppose that clause covers corruption?
A: Precisely! That is what it was intended to do. We may be coming with baggage from wherever we come and maybe some of us are business people, but when you take a government position don’t bring your business interests because you can never be a guardian of a public interest where you are conflicted.

Q: Do you believe that’s going well so far in terms of people living up to that?
A: I don’t know. There are so many ministries. I can only talk of my ministry. I am jealously guarding against that happening where I am seated.

Q: Do you agree that you will have your hands full parrying off attempts to influence decisions or corrupt the system?
A: This is not an ideal world but it is our responsibility to ensure that we march towards the ideal. And therefore we have to be very vigilant and ensure that we don’t drop our guard. You would have noticed that I announced in parliament that we are instituting a forensic audit at the LEC. That is living up to the principles that we have committed ourselves to a clean government and the rule of law. And so, yes, you transform the landscape by sorting out those matters that may have well-entrenched themselves in the culture of doing things and ensuring that they don’t continue.

Q: What do you think is the major issue with the LEC?
A: Two issues. The company is not doing good business. It is terribly indebted. It does not raise as much revenue as you would expect. That is a major issue. And that is what we want the forensic investigation to look into.

Q: So it cannot meet its obligations?
A: It can’t. It has a huge debt that it is unable to settle.

Q: Where did things go wrong?
A: We want to investigate that. But it is the issue of poor corporate governance. Issues of conflict of interest, inflated tenders, procurement done by employees within the system and many other issues. There are many other issues which you would not directly impute on the LEC. The issues of connection fees which are completely outdated despite the ever-soaring cost of equipment. There are those issues as well that would impact the company as a going business.

Q: Tell me how Koro-Koro and Mosalemane were selected (for electrification). These are places you and the PS come from.
A: I know about one. The other one I don’t know about.

Q: Which one?
A: Mosalemane.

Q: Tell me about Mosalemane.
A: I don’t know how it got to the list of selected projects. And I am not saying it shouldn’t have been. It is the prerogative of the minister to decide where priority is given on electrification and I had nothing to do with Mosalemane.

Q: You had nothing to do with Mosalemane but something to do with Koro-Koro?
A: Now let me tell you about Koro-Koro. The cabinet has decided that there must be synergies between the action plans of the ministries. This year, as the nation celebrates its 200 years of existence, the Ministry of Tourism and others, mine included, have a task to identify historical areas to be facilitated with development projects to boost tourism and infrastructure.
From the angle of energy provisioning, we had to look closely at areas where we must provide electricity to boost industrial or economic development. Some of those areas would include Menkhoaneng which does not have electricity but we have prioritised it.
One of the projects that would boost what already exists in terms of energy supply is Semonkong, a tourist area as you know. Now let me talk about Mokema and Koro-Koro. You probably don’t know that the initial colonial capital of this country was Mokema. The first resident commissioner, a Mr Bowker, settled in Mokema.
He moved and established Maseru a few years later. Yet there is no provision of electricity or water in that area. It also happens to be an area of tourist interest: Bushman paintings and dinosaur footprints. You have many young people who are not looking for jobs but making a living out of guiding tourists.
So that is a place of interest in terms of the thrust of government projects and that is the basis of the choice. But also, equally important, that place was supposed to be electrified in 2021 when a minister decided to take the project away and relocate it elsewhere.

Q: That is precisely what you should be talking about, Professor. You are trying to redress an injustice.
A: Absolutely! But also within the context of the government programme that says we should identify those areas that have historical significance that can help boost business and attract tourism as a source of income for the communities.

Q: In other words, you are admitting that were it not because of your presence in the government it could have simply been ignored again?
A: Most definitely.

Q: But you are aware that the aesthetics of it all give the impression that you are pushing for your area? Especially when you don’t get the context?
A: Isn’t the reason I am talking to you not for you to inform the public?

Q: Let’s go back to the PS. One day you find yourself listed as one of the speakers at the launch of a project you knew nothing about. How does that happen?
A: That speaks to the problem we have already talked about. There is a PS who believes he is almost a minister. What I would not have done is punish the people of that community (Mosalemane) because of the wrongdoings of the PS.
At the end of the day, all our citizens are entitled to enjoy electricity and it must be our effort to ensure they are provided with that. So I will not cancel that project, especially because it has already been communicated to the community and they are expecting it. It would be wrong of me to want to punish the community that mostly deserves the electricity.

Q: Everyone deserves electricity but shouldn’t procedure be an issue?
A: It certainly is.

Q: It doesn’t appear to have been followed here.
A: It certainly wasn’t followed.

Q: But this is not a battle you want to fight?
A: For the sake of the people. Definitely.

Q: You will let this one pass?
A: Yes.

Staff Reporter