Reshuffle must improve service delivery

PRIME Minister Sam Matekane’s long-awaited cabinet reshuffle has finally come—and with it, a familiar promise: improved efficiency and better service delivery. For many Basotho, however, the question is not whether change was necessary, but whether this particular change will translate into meaningful improvements in their daily lives.

The reshuffle, the first one since Mr Matekane assumed office in 2022, touches nearly a dozen ministries, removes two senior ministers, introduces new faces, and reassigns others. On paper, it signals decisiveness. In practice, it must do far more than rearrange political furniture.

For years, the Matekane administration has faced mounting criticism over underperformance in key sectors. Complaints have ranged from persistent corruption in various portfolios including passport service facilities to sluggish service delivery in different ministries, deteriorating infrastructure, and growing frustration among unemployed youth. The perception that some ministers were out of their depth or simply ineffective has lingered, raising expectations that a reshuffle would be both bold and strategic.

To his credit, the Prime Minister has finally acted. The removal of Trade Minister Mokhethi Shelile and Environment Minister Letsema Adontši sends a message that no one is untouchable. Their calm acceptance of dismissal reflects political maturity, but it also underscores a deeper truth: ministerial appointments have often been less about performance and more about political balancing.

The introduction of new ministers – drawn from the ruling Revolution for Prosperity (RFP)—offers an opportunity for fresh thinking. Yet “new” does not automatically mean “better”. Experience, competence, and the ability to manage complex bureaucracies are what ultimately determine success in government. Without these, even the most enthusiastic appointees risk becoming overwhelmed by the machinery they are meant to lead.

One notable structural change is the splitting of previously oversized ministries, particularly the former Local Government, Chieftainship, Home Affairs and Police portfolio. This is a sensible move. Concentrating too many critical functions under one minister was always a recipe for inefficiency. In theory, smaller, more focused ministries should improve accountability and responsiveness.

However, structural adjustments alone will not fix systemic problems. The public service has long been plagued by bureaucratic inertia, weak coordination, and, in some cases, strained relationships between ministers and principal secretaries. One outgoing minister even cited poor working relations with his PS as a major obstacle. If such internal dysfunction is not addressed, reshuffling political heads will have limited impact.

Equally concerning is the apparent lack of clear criteria for appointments and dismissals. The Prime Minister has not publicly outlined the performance benchmarks used to judge ministers. Without transparency, the reshuffle risks being interpreted as a political exercise rather than a governance reform. Basotho deserve to know whether decisions are driven by evidence, performance audits, or political expediency.

The coalition context further complicates matters. Although the RFP remains dominant, it still relies on partners such as the Movement for Economic Change and the Alliance of Democrats. Reassigning key figures like Selibe Mochoboroane to different ministries may help maintain coalition cohesion, but it also raises questions about continuity in critical sectors like health. Frequent changes at the top can disrupt policy implementation and stall progress. Mr Mochoboroane was doing well in the health ministry. We are not sure re-assigning him to another portfolio is a good idea.

Another troubling sign is the reported refusal of one appointee, RFP’s Mahobong legislator Nkhethoa Seetsa, to accept a ministerial post. Such a development is rare and potentially indicative of internal disagreements or concerns about the responsibilities attached to the role. It also highlights the importance of consultation and consensus-building within government ranks.

So, should Basotho expect better services and improved governance as promised?

The honest answer is: not immediately, and not automatically.

Service delivery improvements depend on more than ministerial reshuffles. They require clear policy direction, adequate funding, efficient administration, and strong accountability mechanisms. Ministers must be empowered—but also held accountable—for results. This means setting measurable targets, regularly reviewing performance, and taking corrective action when necessary.

Moreover, Mr Matekane himself must play a more active oversight role. Leadership cannot end with appointments. It must extend to monitoring implementation, resolving conflicts within ministries, and ensuring that government priorities are aligned and pursued with urgency.

There is also a need for stability. Constant changes in leadership can create uncertainty and hinder long-term planning. While underperforming ministers should indeed be replaced, the government must strike a balance between flexibility and consistency.

Ultimately, Basotho will judge this reshuffle not by the names announced, but by the outcomes delivered. Will passports be issued on time? Will the police force be capacitated with resources? Will public services become more accessible and efficient?

These are the benchmarks that matter.

For now, the reshuffle offers a reset—an opportunity for the Matekane administration to regain public confidence. But it is only a first step. Without a clear strategy about how to move Lesotho forward, strong leadership, and a relentless focus on results, it risks becoming just another chapter in the long history of political adjustments with limited impact on the ground. The real test begins now.