Mohloai Mpesi
NATIONAL Assembly Speaker, Tlohang Sekhamane, has been accused of shielding Prime Minister Sam Matekane from parliamentary scrutiny after opposition legislators walked out of a much-anticipated question and answer session on Tuesday.
The opposition accused Mr Sekhamane of misinterpreting parliamentary rules by directing MPs to submit their questions five days in advance, arguing that Standing Order 27 allows them to question the Prime Minister without notice.
The legislators walked out after concluding that Mr Sekhamane was determined to prevent them from questioning the premier without first disclosing what they intended to ask him.
They argued that Standing Order 27 requires political parties to submit only the names of MPs who will question the Prime Minister, not the questions themselves.
Mr Sekhamane, however, insisted that the questions had to be submitted beforehand, citing a previous ruling by his deputy, Tšepang Tšita-Mosena.
Standing Order 27 (3) reads: “Political parties shall in writing, and under the signature of the chief whip or leader of that party in the National Assembly, submit the names of members who will ask questions to the Clerk not earlier than five clear days before the day determined by the Business Committee for questions to the Prime Minister without notice.”
The boycott derailed a session that had raised expectations of the Prime Minister facing questions in the National Assembly after years of opposition complaints that he had avoided parliamentary accountability.
Background
Mr Matekane, who leads the Revolution for Prosperity (RFP), was sworn in as Prime Minister on 28 October 2022 after his party won a plurality of seats in the 7 October 2022 general election and formed a coalition government.
Since then, opposition parties have repeatedly accused him of failing to address Parliament or answer MPs’ questions, which they argue is a fundamental responsibility of the head of government.
Eight opposition parties raised similar concerns at a press briefing during an earlier campaign to remove Mr Matekane through a motion of no confidence.
Standing Order 27 has previously been the subject of debate in the House. In April 2023, a notice of motion was tabled proposing an amendment requiring questions to the Prime Minister to be submitted in writing five clear days in advance.
Mpulule Political Summit leader, Reverend Remaketse Sehlabaka, has also filed a notice of motion seeking a declaration that any decision to excuse the Prime Minister from appearing before the House is inconsistent with Standing Order 27 and therefore null and void.
How it unfolded
Mr Matekane was expected to answer MPs’ questions on Tuesday, in what would have ended a nearly four-year spell without making a statement to, or responding to questions from, the House.
The Prime Minister arrived at the National Assembly looking relaxed and ready to respond to MPs. He shook hands and exchanged smiles with legislators from both the government and opposition benches.
The sitting attracted an unusually large turnout, including some MPs rarely seen in the House. This reporter counted more than 80 of the 120 legislators when proceedings began, with others arriving later. This compared to the low turnouts of around 30 MPs who usually attend parliamentary sessions.
Small groups chatted animatedly ahead of the session, with some exchanging smiles and laughter as anticipation built around the prospect of the Prime Minister finally facing questions from his political opponents.
However, the proceedings took a different turn when United Africans Transformation (UAT) leader, Dr Mahali Phamotse, withdrew her question, arguing that it had been listed on the order paper as a notice, contrary to Standing Order 27.
“That way, it has breached Standing Order 27, so I withdraw the question. You told me that I have to withdraw the questions and only provide a name so that I will be asking the Prime Minister questions. Therefore, this is a breach of the procedure, so I am withdrawing,” she said.
She was followed by Mr Sehlabaka, who also withdrew his questions.
Basotho Action Party (BAP) leader, Professor Nqosa Mahao, said he had arrived prepared to question the Prime Minister but had refused to submit his questions after being instructed to do so by the Speaker.
Prof Mahao said Mr Sekhamane had sent an usher to inform him that his name appeared on the list of MPs scheduled to ask questions, but the questions themselves were missing.
“I submitted my name and I was going to ask a question in relation to Standing Order 27. Then the Speaker sent an usher saying he could see my name but not the question.
“I told him to explain to the Speaker that I am going to ask a question in terms of Standing Order 27, not 24, and I don’t have to file a question.
“Today, I came ready to ask my question, as did other MPs who filed their names. People close to the Prime Minister do not have confidence in him, and he does not have confidence in himself,” Prof Mahao said.
He criticised the leadership of the House, accusing the Speaker of abandoning his duty to preside impartially over parliamentary proceedings.
“There is no leadership in this House. The only thing that destroys this Tenth Parliament is Speakers who came into the House as goalkeeper to protect the unprotectable,” he said.
Leader of the Opposition, Mathibeli Mokhothu, also accused Mr Sekhamane of misdirecting himself and protecting the Prime Minister from scrutiny.
“The government side is showing a vote of no confidence in their Prime Minister. They do not have confidence in him to answer questions in Parliament. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister is the climax of accountability.
“The Speaker is trying by all means to protect the Prime Minister from being asked questions in Parliament,” Mr Mokhothu said.
He argued that the purpose of Standing Order 27 was to allow MPs to question the Prime Minister without prior notice, thereby preventing the executive from controlling the questions put to it.
“This simply means the Speaker does not have to play goalkeeper and protect the Prime Minister. He is humiliating the Prime Minister by suggesting he is not capable of answering MPs’ questions,” he said.
Mr Mokhothu said the Speaker had compounded the problem by directing MPs to submit their questions and advising them to file a motion if they wanted his ruling reviewed.
“It is clear that people should submit their names, not the questions themselves. But we saw the Speaker misdirect himself and tell us to file a motion seeking a review and setting aside his decision, so that the government can abuse its numbers to vote against it.
“The standing order says we cannot submit questions, but we should submit names. Now our colleagues have withdrawn their questions, and they say the Prime Minister was ready to answer. No, he was ready to answer only because he had the questions.
“Basotho must know that Mr Matekane is the first Prime Minister who refuses to answer questions in Parliament, and the government side is protecting him because they do not have confidence in him,” he said.
Mr Mokhothu added that the Prime Minister had never made a statement in Parliament and accused him of making major announcements outside the House rather than subjecting himself to parliamentary scrutiny.
“It is such a disgrace. Sam has never made a statement in Parliament. He will declare a state of disaster on the street, not in Parliament, because we will grill him with questions,” he said.
Mr Sehlabaka said he had withdrawn his questions because continuing under the disputed procedure would undermine his commitment to the rule of law.
“It is the fear of a leader who does not trust himself and thinks he is being cornered on everything. I withdrew the questions because I realised that I would stop being a champion of obeying the law. We are working to make things right in terms of the law,” he said.
He further accused the Matekane administration of capturing state institutions, including the courts and Parliament.
“This is the first time in my life that I have seen an administration that has captured all the institutions like that of Mr Matekane. It has captured Parliament and the courts. We are trying to correct this as an August House,” he said.
Basotho Patriotic Party (BPP) leader Tefo Mapesela accused Mr Sekhamane of knowingly misinterpreting the standing orders while shifting the responsibility for challenging his decision onto MPs.
“It is unfortunate that the Speaker knowingly and deliberately misdirects himself and then tells us that we know what we have to do when he is wrong.
“It is my first time seeing a Speaker misdirect himself. We have to sue him. Either way, we know they disregard court orders. We have a problem of governance in this country,” Mr Mapesela said.
Speaker defends ruling
Mr Sekhamane rejected the opposition’s interpretation, saying MPs had misunderstood the procedure governing questions directed at the Prime Minister.
He said the current practice had emerged from a ruling by his deputy, Ms Tšita-Mosena, who had determined that questions should be submitted in writing to give the Prime Minister an opportunity to prepare his responses.
“It seems there is a misunderstanding on the issue of the Prime Minister’s questions without notice. Standing Order 27 has always been in the House and has been debated many times.
“Standing Order 27 was interpreted to mean that MPs would ask questions in the House, and it would be the first time the Prime Minister heard those questions.
“That was changed on the basis that it was not helpful. It was said the Prime Minister must be given the broad areas in which questions will be framed,” he said.
Mr Sekhamane added that the procedure had subsequently been changed to allow the Prime Minister to receive the actual questions before appearing in the House.
“It was also changed so that the Prime Minister must be given the questions, prepare and come to answer.
“Lately, the Deputy Speaker made a ruling on this issue, that the Prime Minister must be given questions, study them and prepare to answer.
“The Leader of the Opposition said I should review that decision of the Deputy Speaker with the intention of changing it, but that would not be proper. I cannot change a ruling that the Deputy Speaker has made in the House,” he said.