Mohloai Mpesi
THE Maseru City Council (MCC) says it has begun the process of terminating the contract of procurement consultant, Peo Mputsoe, after the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) questioned both the legality of his appointment and his remuneration.
It emerged last month, when the MCC appeared before the PAC, that Mr Mputsoe, the former Lesotho Electricity Company (LEC) procurement manager, had been engaged in early June as an independent procurement consultant for five months at a monthly fee of M42 000.
The appointment raised eyebrows because Mr Mputsoe’s remuneration was almost double that of the Council’s substantive Procurement Manager, Ntheko Janki, who joined the MCC in February this year on a salary of about M22 000 per month before going on maternity leave. The Committee also questioned why the consultancy position had never been publicly advertised.
This week, the PAC heard that the Council had initiated steps to terminate Mr Mputsoe’s Service Level Agreement (SLA).
The Committee was told that, following discussions between the Ministry of Local Government and Chieftainship and the Council after the PAC hearings, the MCC had resolved to end the contract.
The PAC had previously grilled the council over the appointment, questioning why the consultancy had not been advertised and raising concerns about hiring an official whose tenure at the LEC had been associated with procurement controversies.
The Ministry of Local Government and Chieftainship and the MCC appeared before the PAC this week to report on progress regarding Mr Mputsoe’s employment.
The ministry delegation was led by Acting Principal Secretary, Florina Rakeketsi, and Acting Director General, ‘Moea Makhakhe.
Asked to account for the termination process, Ms Rakeketsi told the committee that the MCC had issued Mr Mputsoe with a show-cause letter asking him to explain why his SLA should not be terminated.
“The MCC has written a show-cause letter on why the contract cannot be terminated,” Ms Rakeketsi said.
Reading extracts from the letter, she said it informed Mr Mputsoe that the Council intended to review his contract in light of issues raised by the PAC.
The letter states: “A notice to show cause why the Service Level Agreement between the Maseru City Council (the Council) and yourself should not be terminated.
“You may recall that the Council and yourself concluded a service level agreement in terms of which you are to render certain services to the Council, on the terms and conditions…
“You will further recall that, subsequent to the conclusion of the SLA, allegations were made against you by the Public Accounts Committee following a forensic audit conducted at the Lesotho Electricity Company.
“The Council views these findings, and the light in which they cast you, in a serious manner.”
It further states: “A discussion was subsequently held between the parties, in the course of which the possibility of a mutually acceptable and clean termination of the SLA was raised, with a view to protecting the respective interests of both yourself and the Council.
“Arising from the foregoing, and in the interest of justice and fair process, the Council hereby calls upon you to show cause in writing why the SLA should not be terminated on account of the findings made by the Public Accounts Committee.
“You are accorded a period of 14 days from the date of this letter within which to submit your written representations. Should you fail to respond, the Council shall be entitled to proceed with terminating the SLA on the basis of the information at its disposal, without further reference to you.”
However, the wording of the letter drew sharp criticism from PAC members, who argued that the Council was unfairly attributing the proposed termination to PAC findings instead of acknowledging its own procurement failures.
PAC chairperson, ‘Machabana Lemphane-Letsie, questioned why the Council had relied on the Committee’s findings instead of admitting it had wrongly allowed two people to occupy the same position.
“Which findings are those? Maseru City Council deems it correct to have two people in one position, then says it is because of PAC findings. According to you, was it correct?
“’M’e PS, when you have two people in one position, you don’t terminate it because of PAC findings,” Ms Lemphane-Letsie said.
Responding, the Ministry’s Director General, Selebeli Mosola said he had agreed with Principal Secretary Mabataung Khalane that the Town Clerk should report directly to the Director General’s office.
“Maseru City Council issues come to the office of the Director General. They report to the office of the Director General.
“Now that I have assumed this office, it is my responsibility to know what is happening. It was only two weeks ago that the PS emphasised that the Town Clerk should report to the office of the DG, not the office of the PS,” Mr Mosola said.
PAC member, Dr Tšeliso Moroke, accused Mr Mosola of failing to hold the Town Clerk accountable and instead shifting responsibility to the Committee.
“You failed to take responsibility for holding the Town Clerk accountable, and that is why we find ourselves where we are.
“You were in the meeting when he gave an account of how we got here regarding the employment of the consultant. The law says the Town Clerk is answerable to you, but he is doing as he pleases.
“We once opposed your ministry’s budget because of people who were not employed correctly. Such issues are before the courts, and this one is headed there too.
“You are hiding behind the PAC. Was the job advertised?” Dr Moroke asked.
Ms Lemphane-Letsie also questioned whether it had been appropriate to appoint a procurement consultant when the Council already had a substantive procurement manager.
Mr Mosola replied: “It is not correct at all”.
She further challenged the ministry’s decision to cite the PAC as the reason for terminating the contract.
“So how does the PAC come into this? According to you, was it correct to use the PAC as your defence? Does that mean that if you had not come before the PAC, you would have continued with that wrongdoing?” she asked.
Dr Moroke said the Committee had already identified numerous irregularities during previous hearings, including the failure to advertise the consultancy.
“In the PAC sitting during which this letter was discussed, you hid behind the PAC. A lot was said in that sitting, including whether the job was advertised.
“We discussed those issues and found irregularities, including the fact that the consultant reports directly to the Town Clerk. Instead of raising those issues himself, he drags the PAC into it.
“When you read Mr Mputsoe’s response, he is trying to dust off this whole issue. There is a trend coming from the Town Clerk’s office. All these people are going to answer to issues that are different from what is happening on the ground,” Dr Moroke said.
Ms Lemphane-Letsie accused the Council of deliberately framing the show-cause letter in a way that would allow Mr Mputsoe to complete his contract.
“What I see is that this is simply a plan to let Mr Mputsoe finish his contract. That is the sole purpose of the people who gave him the contract — they are working to ensure that he finishes it. What is left is for Mr Mputsoe to say he was not employed because of the PAC, and he would be correct.
“You are working to let him complete the six months you contracted him for, when there is already a procurement manager in place. But I must warn you of the damage he is going to cause. You will be embarrassed if we expose what he is already doing at the MCC.
“You continue to pay two people for the same position. The one who is not properly employed is paid double the salary of the one who is,” she said.
She further criticised the disparity in remuneration, saying the substantive procurement manager earned about M22 000 per month while Mr Mputsoe received M42 000, including a M25 000 settlement allowance.
“The one who is employed earns M22 000 a month, while Mr Mputsoe, who was not properly employed and whose CV was taken from a database of previous applicants, earns M42 000, including a settlement allowance of M25 000. And you tell me that is justified.
“I can see that you are startled, Mr DG. These are the things the Acting Town Clerk is doing,” Ms Lemphane-Letsie said.
