Mohloai Mpesi
BASOTHO Action Party (BAP) leader, Professor Nqosa Mahao, has accused National Assembly Speaker, Tlohang Sekhamane, of “undermining” and “sowing” divisions within his political party.
This after Mr Sekhamane rejected Prof Mahao’s attempts to appoint himself as the chairperson of the BAP’s parliamentary caucus to replace one of the party’s six Members of Parliament (MPs), Tello Kibane. Mr Sekhamane has also rejected Prof Mahao’s attempts to pull the BAP out of the coalition government.
The BAP’s six members have been split with a majority four opposing the decisions of their leader, Prof Mahao. The four; ‘Mamoipone Senauoane, Hilda Vanrooyen, Tello Kibane, and Motlatsi Maqelepo, have rejected Prof Mahao’s attempts to pull the BAP out of the coalition government after his firing as Energy Minister by Prime Minister Sam Matekane in November 2024. Mr Sekhamane has sided with their majority decision.
Prof Mahao exchanged harsh words with the Speaker on Thursday after Mr Sekhamane rejected his attempts to overhaul the BAP parliamentary caucus by appointing himself as its new leader. Mr Sekhamane had just read letters written to him by the two BAP factions vying for control of the caucus.
Two of the letters were written on the 13th of February 2025 by Prof Mahao and his ally ‘Mannyaneso Taole, while the other letter was written on the 18th of February 2025 by Mr Kibane and Ms Vanrooyen.
Professor Mahao’s letter, titled “Changes in the BAP Parliamentary Caucus Committee”, “informed” the Speaker that the BAP parliamentary caucus had appointed him as its chairperson at a meeting held at the party’s offices at Mafube House in Matsoatlareng, Maseru, on 20 January 2025. He explained that the committee decided to remove Mr Kibane, the incumbent chairperson.
The other letter, written on 13 February 2025 by Ms Taole, informed the Speaker that they had withdrawn the Basotho Action Party from the coalition government.
Mr Kibane’s letter, dated 18 February 2025, contradicted Prof Mahao and Ms Taole’s letter. It insisted there had been no changes in the BAP parliamentary caucus; Mr Kibane and Ms Vanrooyen remained as chairperson and secretary of the caucus, respectively.
Prof Mahao was irked by Mr Sekhamane’s stance in accepting the position outlined by Mr Kibane. He was further riled by the Speaker’s description of his attempts to overhaul the caucus as being “disingenuous”.
He accused Mr Sekhamane of planting a seed of division in his party, going as far as alleging that the Speaker had attended meetings convened by the rebellious four MPs to scupper his directives as party leader.
Mr Sekhamane and Prof Mahao then exchanged harsh words with the latter vowing legal action to challenge the Speaker.
“You said the BAP is divided; indeed, BAP has sides, and they have been created by you……Oh yes, we appreciate that the Speaker has descended into the arena of individual political parties to create sides. Therefore, we were expecting this decision from you….”
“…..I should let you know that the BAP does not accept the decision you have made (to reject changes to the caucus)….” Prof Mahao said.
Mr Sekhamane, while delivering his ruling on the BAP’s protracted drama, also said he did not appreciate getting letters from various members of one party as the BAP had done. All communication should be channeled through the caucus secretary of a party, as per parliamentary traditions.
He vowed not to entertain such behaviour by replying or entertaining correspondence from various individuals within one party.
He said it was obvious, “without a doubt”, that the BAP parliamentary caucus had not removed Mr Kibane from the position of chairperson. He criticized Prof Mahao and Ms Taole for claiming that “all members” of the caucus had endorsed the leadership change when, in fact, it was only the two of them who signed the letter.
“It doesn’t take rocket science to come to the obvious conclusion that in truth, the BAP caucus has not removed Mr Kibane from the position of chairperson. No amount of public castigation of the Speaker can change this. These are the harsh and practical realities that the BAP needs to grapple with in this Eleventh parliament.”
“It is clear that the Speaker cannot and should not take seriously the current correspondence from Professor Mahao and Ms Taole. It is disingenuous of them to write that, ‘all members appointed Professor Mahao, leader of BAP, to be the new chairperson of BAP Caucus,’ when in fact, they mean only the two of them.
“It is intentional and conscious deceit. This issue of ‘all members’ I take it very seriously. It is similar to when BAP writes a letter and says there has never been a time when Ms Vanrooyen was ever the Secretary of the caucus.”
Mr Sekhamane advised the party to be more truthful and speak with one voice as a caucus.
“Let’s try to be more authentic and truthful about what we are doing. Other parties write with one voice. They don’t put me in a position where I have to use my own devices to adjudicate…. The caucus needs to communicate with me in one voice so that it is not said the Speaker has taken sides in the media. Why should there be sides in the first place? Even if there are internal conflicts at the party level, the Caucus should address me in one voice.”
“My ruling is that in truth, the BAP caucus has neither removed Mr Kibane from the position of chairman of the caucus nor has it decided to cross the floor to the opposition,” he said, in remarks that riled Prof Mahao.