Moroke Sekoboto
PARLIAMENT is continuing to press for answers over how United for Change (UFC) founder, ’Malichaba Lekhoaba, was appointed director and chief executive officer of the Land Administration Authority (LAA).
Ms Lekhoaba was appointed to head the LAA early last year amid an uproar over claims that she was underqualified for the position.
According to an LAA press statement issued at the time, Ms Lekhoaba holds a diploma in accounting and a postgraduate qualification in business administration.
Critics argued that these qualifications did not meet the requirements set out in the job advertisement issued on 20 December 2023 by recruitment agency KM Global Consultancy.
The advert required candidates to possess either a Master’s degree in Finance, Public Administration, Economics, or Urban and Regional Planning, with at least seven years’ experience in a senior management position, or a Bachelor’s degree in the same fields with a minimum of 10 years’ senior management experience.
Ms Lekhoaba’s appointment has widely been viewed as a reward for her UFC’s support of Prime Minister Sam Matekane’s coalition government.
The issue first sparked debate in the National Assembly in March last year when Members of Parliament questioned the legality of her appointment.
Her appointment has also been challenged in court by Democratic Congress (DC) member Ramahooana Matlosa. The case is still pending.
The matter resurfaced this week before the National Assembly’s Portfolio Committee on the Law and Public Safety Cluster, which demanded answers on how Ms Lekhoaba was appointed despite allegedly not meeting the job requirements.
Minister of Local Government, Home Affairs and Police, Lebona Lephema, told the committee this week that the allegations regarding Ms Lekhoaba’s academic qualifications had previously been investigated by former Principal Secretary Mamphaka Lebesa on his instructions.
However, Mr Lephema said the matter could not proceed further because the appointment is currently the subject of an ongoing court case.
“The concerns raised in Parliament concerning her academic qualifications were formally investigated by the former Principal Secretary, Mamphaka Lebesa, upon my instruction. However, as there is currently an active court case regarding this matter, the issue is sub judice. We respectfully request that this committee allow the judicial process to conclude before further deliberation,” Mr Lephema said.
The minister’s request drew sharp criticism from committee member Professor Nqosa Mahao, who argued that the ministry’s reliance on the courts amounted to an admission of administrative failure.
Prof Mahao said the minister was hiding behind the sub judice (pending before court) principle despite what he described as a clear conflict of interest in the investigation.
According to Prof Mahao, the investigation was flawed because it was conducted by the same Principal Secretary who had recommended Ms Lekhoaba’s appointment.
“The Minister’s suggestion that we await a court judgment highlights a failure in the system’s ability to self-correct. Had a thorough internal investigation been completed, the Minister could have provided this committee with concrete assurances regarding the legality of the appointment process.
“As a separate branch of government, our oversight mandate persists independently of any legal proceedings; therefore, the ministry remains accountable to this committee, and we continue to demand a full explanation,” Prof Mahao said.
He added that the administrative investigation followed public challenges to Ms Lekhoaba’s appointment but failed to provide clarity to Parliament.
“For the system to maintain integrity, it must be self-correcting. However, despite the minister’s instructions, the Principal Secretary failed to provide an account to Parliament.
“Furthermore, a clear conflict of interest exists. Ms Lekhoaba was appointed on the recommendation of the same Principal Secretary who presided over the alleged irregularities and was later tasked with investigating them, rendering the process illogical,” Prof Mahao said.
Committee chairperson Everest Ramakatsa recalled that the matter had previously attracted a legal opinion from the Attorney General, Advocate Rapelang Motsieloa KC, who suggested that Parliament was “overreaching” by intervening in the ministry’s internal affairs.
Mr Ramakatsa said the dispute had previously escalated to the level of the Speaker of the National Assembly and the minister for mediation.
Despite the procedural hurdles and the minister’s reluctance to discuss the matter further, Mr Ramakatsa said the committee would continue monitoring the issue.
“As we recall, the former Principal Secretary sought a legal opinion from the Attorney General, who suggested that Parliament was overstepping its authority by intervening in the ministry’s internal affairs. This disagreement eventually required mediation by the Speaker and the Minister.
“I suggest we move forward with our current agenda while remaining committed to closely monitoring this issue,” Mr Ramakatsa said.
