Mohloai Mpesi
THE controversy surrounding the Maseru City Council’s (MCC) M27.3 million consultancy tender for the rehabilitation of the Ha-Tšosane dumpsite has taken a dramatic turn, with the council accusing the successful bidder, SSL Joint Venture (SSL JV), of deploying personnel different from the “experts” it had presented during the tender evaluation process as the ones who would oversee the implementation of the project.
The allegations emerged during the Friday sitting of Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee (PAC), which summoned MCC to explain its decision to cancel the lucrative contract, a matter first reported by the Sunday Express sister paper, the Lesotho Times, over the past two weeks.
The dispute centres on a consultancy contract awarded for the stabilisation and rehabilitation of the Ha-Tšosane dumpsite, one of Maseru’s most pressing environmental hazards, and the design of a new sanitary landfill at Tšoeneng.
Background
MCC invited bids in June 2025 for a two-pronged environmental project: the stabilisation and rehabilitation of the Ha-Tšosane dumpsite, and the design of a new sanitary landfill at Tšoeneng, including long-term environmental management.
Seven firms purchased tender documents: SMEC/SeCo/Land Survey and Engineering JV, Gabriel and Consultation and Heating (Pty) Ltd, Stable Structural Solutions, Geo Pomona Waste Management, LL Projects (Pty) Ltd, New Horizon-BGM JV Consultancy and PASCO.
The tender closed on 25 August 2025, with only three companies submitting bids.
The contract was ultimately awarded to SSL Joint Venture (SSL JV) Consultants at a professional fee of M27,303,450. A notice of intention to award the tender was issued on 10 October 2025, the letter of award followed on 19 November, and the contract was signed on 8 December 2025.
The Ha-Tšosane dumpsite has long posed serious public health and environmental risks to residents of Maseru, making its rehabilitation a priority for the city. The Tšoeneng sanitary landfill project is intended to provide the capital with a modern and environmentally compliant waste disposal facility.
The PAC session
Appearing before the committee, MCC Town Clerk Moea Makhakhe, said the council had terminated the contract on the grounds that it had acted outside its jurisdiction under Schedule 4 of the Procurement Act 2023.
He said the Act establishes a Central Tender Board responsible for handling procurements on behalf of public entities where consultancy contracts exceed M20 million, a threshold surpassed by the M27.3 million contract.
“The contract does not exist because it is void ab initio,” Mr Makhakhe told the committee, using the legal term meaning wrong from the outset.
He said the jurisdictional issue was only discovered after the contract had been signed and work had already commenced.
“Upon review, we discovered that we did not have jurisdiction. The Procurement Act 2023, Schedule 4, establishes a Central Tender Board which shall be responsible for conducting the procurement process on behalf of a public entity for large tenders in excess of M20 million for consultancy services. The contract value was M27 million,” he said.
‘Bait and switch’
Mr Makhakhe also revealed another issue that had already prompted MCC to consider terminating the contract before the jurisdictional concerns emerged.
He accused SSL JV of engaging in a “bait and switch” by submitting the credentials and CVs of highly qualified experts during the bidding process, only to deploy different personnel after securing the contract.
“On 9 March 2026, we wrote to the JV and informed them that we suspected a bait and switch. It means you bait the procuring authority by submitting CVs and profiles of people you have no intention of deploying,” he said.
In that March letter, MCC stated that the contract had been awarded on the strength of specific experts named in Form Tech5: Composition Task Assignment. These included Van Dijk Royen (Project Manager), Willie Wilkinson (Environmental Engineering Specialist), Jurgen Oosthuysse (Geotechnical Materials Engineer), Tuntsang (Leebo) Gabriel (Electrical Engineering Specialist) and Oynma Magaaba (Resident Engineer).
“To date, despite repeated requests, none of these individuals have been deployed to site. Meetings have been conducted, submissions made and correspondence exchanged, but not once have the individuals who secured this contract been present to lead, certify or take ownership of the work.
“This is not a procedural oversight; it is a fundamental breach of the representations upon which this contract rests,” the letter stated.
Mr Makhakhe said after three months without meaningful progress, the matter was referred to the council, which recommended terminating the contract.
“We went to the council, which advised that we should terminate the contract because we had already entered the third month without any movement,” he said.
PAC pushes back
PAC Chairperson, ‘Machabana Lemphane-Letsie, rejected the jurisdictional defence, arguing that it appeared to be a post-facto justification for terminating a contract that had soured due to performance concerns.
“You got the tendering process wrong from the beginning. You did not terminate the contract because of this clause, but because the JV was not working. That is what you just said. This issue goes back to you,” Ms Lemphane-Letsie said.
She argued that if MCC genuinely lacked jurisdiction, it should have identified the problem at the outset and referred the matter to the Central Tender Board before signing the contract.
“If this is challenged, they will win. Why do you hide the actual truth of the termination?” she asked.
She also challenged Mr Makhakhe’s assertion that the contract did not exist.
“No, this contract exists because it has been signed. Had you not fallen out during the review, you would not have terminated it. The reason for termination is not jurisdiction,” she said.
Legitimate expectation
PAC member, Lephoi Makara, said the signing of the contract created a legal relationship and a legitimate expectation on the part of the service provider.
“We should all agree that you entered into a contract with a service provider. Signing a contract creates a legitimate expectation. The provider worked and invoiced you. It is only when he invoices you that you think of reviewing the contract,” Mr Makara said.
Mr Makhakhe maintained that the issue was one of law and that a contract concluded outside the prescribed jurisdiction is not merely voidable but void and without legal effect.
“It is not about hiding; it is a matter of law,” he said.
SSL JV has since given MCC five days to reverse its decision to terminate the contract or face further legal action. It is yet to be seen whether SSL JV will proceed to court when the five-day ultimatum expires this week.