THE controversy engulfing the Ministry of Finance and Development Planning and the Revenue Services Lesotho (RSL) has now escalated to a point where Parliament must assert its constitutional authority.
The Portfolio Committee on the Economic Cluster is rightfully moving to summon the Minister of Finance and Development Planning, Retšelisitsoe Matlanyane, to respond to serious allegations of interference in RSL operations.
These allegations, if left unexamined, risk eroding public trust in one of the country’s most critical institutions.
The storm was ignited by startling revelations from the fired RSL Commissioner-General, ‘Mathabo Mokoko, who accused the Minister of issuing directives that were not only inappropriate but “outright unlawful”.
The allegations include instructions to release confidential taxpayer information, to issue tax clearances to delinquent companies that owed the state millions, and to manipulate legally regulated debt-to-equity ratios for mining entities.
These are not minor administrative disagreements, but infractions which strike at the heart of the rule of law, the independence of tax administration, and the integrity of public finance management.
In a functional democracy, tax authorities must operate free from undue political influence.
Their work demands objectivity, confidentiality, and fidelity to the law. If politicians can demand tax clearances for non-compliant companies, or compel the disclosure of sensitive taxpayer information for reasons outside the law, then the entire tax system risks becoming a weapon of convenience — used to protect allies and punish opponents. Such a scenario is untenable for a country already struggling with revenue leakage, corruption risks and an underperforming economy.
What makes these allegations even more disturbing is that they are documented in correspondence from Adv Mokoko’s legal representatives, Mei & Mei Attorneys.
These letters outline, in detail, the nature of the alleged interference, including attempts to adjust mining companies’ debt-to-equity ratio from the legal standard of 3:1 to an unconventional 8:1 – a policy issue that can only be addressed through legislation, not to be subjected to executive whim.
If it is true, it would represent a dangerous overreach that undermines both the law and the long-standing principles governing Lesotho’s fiscal framework.
It is therefore alarming that, even after multiple invitations, Dr Matlanyane has not appeared before the Committee nor proposed a clear alternative date.
Parliament is not a mere suggestion box; it is the country’s supreme oversight body. Ministers are constitutionally obliged to account to it and the excuse of having busy schedules cannot be used as a shield from scrutiny.
The Committee chairperson, Hakane Sello, is justified in signalling that a formal summons may be inevitable. A summons is not a political attack; it is a tool of accountability and compliance is not optional.
The minister’s inability, intentional or otherwise, to meet Parliament half-way only fuels public suspicion. At a time when Basotho are demanding more transparency from their leaders, such behaviour sends the wrong message. It suggests evasiveness where openness is needed, and defensiveness where cooperation is expected.
The Lesotho Times is not suggesting she is guilty.
Dr Matlanyane, like any other public official, deserves the chance to respond fully and clearly to all allegations against her but she does not deserve the luxury of silence.
The principle at stake is whether laws governing public finance can be bent by powerful individuals and whether the RSL can execute its mandate without fear or favour.
And, ultimately, it is about whether Parliament is prepared to defend institutional independence in the face of executive pressure.
If Parliament allows this moment to pass without firm action, it will set a dangerous precedent. It will signal to current and future ministers that oversight can be evaded by simply ignoring invitations to account transparently.
It will weaken the fragile accountability structures that keep governance in check and diminish Parliament’s own authority.
Lesotho’s democracy cannot afford such a collapse of oversight. The Committee must proceed with the summons if the minister fails to appear. It must interrogate the allegations thoroughly, transparently, and without partisan bias. And it must ensure that the public receives a clear account of what transpired.
In this case, accountability is not optional. It is a constitutional imperative. Parliament must defend the integrity of the RSL and, by extension, the integrity of the state. The rule of law demands no less.
