Mohloai Mpesi
THE government’s recent agreement with the United States on health funding has sparked widespread uproar, drawing sharp criticism from both the main opposition and civil society organizations over alleged breaches of Lesotho’s constitutional and legal frameworks.
Concerns centre on transparency, consultation, national sovereignty, and long-term commitments, with critics arguing the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was signed unlawfully without parliamentary approval.
Leader of the main opposition in the National Assembly, Mathibeli Mokhothu, condemned the $364 million (M6.2 billion) agreement, signed on 10 December 2025, calling it null and void.
The MoU, which covers the funding and management of Foreign Assistance for Health programmes in Lesotho, also includes the sharing of critical data and biological specimens for 25 years.
Mr Mokhothu condemned the signing as unlawful, saying the government acted without parliamentary consent.
“The government acted outside the parameters of the law. The next administration may scrutinize this agreement and question whether corruption influenced its signing. Courts can nullify the entire agreement and force both states back to the negotiating table,” he said.
He further warned that the agreement risks reducing Parliament to a “rubber stamp” if the legal processes are bypassed.
“I don’t think the United States will agree to return to the negotiating table unless the agreement contains clauses allowing for review. Civil society organizations should take action beyond complaints—they have the legal right to file cases,” he added.
Civil society organizations (CSOs) have also expressed concern, citing threats to national sovereignty, lack of transparency, and failure to comply with constitutional requirements.
They argued that language and structure of the MoU could place Lesotho in a subordinate position, undermining national dignity and sovereignty.
“There was insufficient consultation with stakeholders, including civil society, development partners, and national authorities, prior to signing. Critical annexes, notably Annex 4 and 5, which relate to data sharing and biological specimen management, have not been made public,” the state in their press release.
The release stressed the long-term nature of the agreement, saying that a 25-year commitment to data and specimen sharing requires thorough stakeholder involvement.
“Such a lengthy contract, with potential implications for existing national legislation, including data protection and constitutional privacy rights, demands careful legal review and parliamentary concurrence.”
CSOs also emphasized that the MoU should have been tabled in Parliament for debate before signing, as required by Section 153(c) of the Constitution.
“This constitutional safeguard exists to ensure democratic oversight, transparency, and protection of national interests. Any agreement entered without parliamentary approval is inconsistent with the Constitution and should be considered null and void,” the release reads.
Civil society has called for immediate public disclosure of the full MOU and all annexes, including Annexes 4 and 5. They demand that the agreement be formally tabled in Parliament for debate and approval, and that a comprehensive legal review be conducted to assess compliance with the Constitution and national legislation. Civil society also insists on meaningful engagement with them, as required under Section 20 of the Constitution.
The release warned that failure to meet these demands would confirm suspicions that the undisclosed annexes contain content detrimental to Basotho.
Attempts to obtain comments from the Ministers of Finance and Development Planning, Dr Retšelisitsoe Matlanyane, and Health, Selibe Mochoboroane, were unsuccessful. Dr Matlanyane ended the call abruptly, while Mr Mochoboroane’s phone went unanswered.
