Mohloai Mpesi/’Mathatisi Sebusi
LESOTHO’s opposition parties and a rights group have strongly criticized Prime Minister Sam Matekane’s government over its recent agreements with the South African government, calling them “frivolous and useless”.
The two governments recently met for a two-day second session of the Bi-National Commission (BNC), where they signed several Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs), which the opposition have criticised as “frivolous and of no benefit to Basotho”.
The second session of the BNC took place in Maseru from April 22-23, 2025, while the maiden session of the commission was held in Pretoria in September 2023.
The signed MoUs include deals on defence and security collaboration, water and energy cooperation, and the construction of two dams on the Mohokare-Caledon River.
Additional MoUs were signed on higher education, basic education, and social development, with a focus on strengthening human capital as a driver of economic progress.
The countries also reaffirmed their commitment to advancing renewable energy.
However, one key issue was left unresolved – the 90-day visa-free arrangement for Basotho to stay in South Africa.
Prime Minister Matekane had pushed for this during the BNC session, but South African President Cyril Ramaphosa gave a non-committal response, saying it would be “considered.”
Premier Matekane had reminded President Ramaphosa that the two countries had previously agreed to prioritize the free movement of people, goods, and services.
He had urged South Africa to implement the 90-day visa deal by May 1, 2025, as the countries work on a new migration model.
Against the backdrop of these unmet expectations, the opposition parties and a rights group have come out strongly against the government, accusing it of making “frivolous agreements” with South Africa.
They claim the deals lack substance and fail to address the pressing concerns of Basotho.
The opposition parties and rights group, the Migrant Workers Association (MWA)-Lesotho, believe the government has settled for a suboptimal deal with South Africa.
Speaking to the?Sunday Express?on Friday, some leaders argued that the proposed 90-day visa-free travel would ease the burden and reduce problems for Basotho in South Africa, while others said it is “simply not enough”.
The politicians especially, claim South Africa is taking advantage of Lesotho’s inexperienced and incompetent governance to further its own agenda, sidelining policies that could benefit Basotho.
Motlalentoa Letsosa, the deputy leader of the main opposition Democratic Congress (DC), accused the South African government of taking Lesotho for granted.
He claimed the two governments had hastily signed agreements that primarily served South Africa’s interests, while sidelining provisions that could benefit Lesotho.
Mr Letsosa argued that South Africa is “exploiting the Lesotho government’s lack of governance experience to advance its own agenda, often with little resistance from Lesotho”.
He criticized South Africa for dragging its feet on addressing Lesotho’s needs, particularly the long-requested 90-day visa agreement.
Mr Letsosa expressed disappointment that during the BNC meeting, South Africa failed to present a concrete implementation plan for the visa arrangement, claiming only that the matter was still under consideration.
He emphasized that the 90-day visa or free border movement was one of the biggest challenges facing Basotho, and that “it is in everyone’s interests to ease travel between the two countries, but South Africa seems uninterested”.
Furthermore, Mr Letsosa argued that South Africa was primarily interested in Lesotho’s water resources and in facilitating the movement of its goods, especially agricultural produce, across the border, rather than prioritizing the free movement of people.
The leader of the Basotho National Party (BNP), Machesetsa Mofomobe, argued the 90-day visa-free proposal, while to some extent a necessity “will not help those who spend a lot on transport to extend their stay at the border”.
“The 90-day visa-free is not meaningful if the sole intention is to ease pressure from Basotho working illegally in South Africa. It won’t benefit them, as they remain illegal immigrants without a work permit, whether it’s 30 or 90 days,” Mr Mofomobe said.
Those working near the border would benefit more than those in distant cities like Durban or Cape Town, who would incur significant travel costs to extend their stay.
He criticized the government for advocating the 90-day proposal instead of securing more meaningful concessions, such as a longer exemption permit for Lesotho.
Mr Mofomobe suggested that Mr Matekane’s government’s budding relations with Rwanda (whose relations with SA are tense) and the approval of Starlink’s operating license “may have compelled South Africa to treat Lesotho unfavourably”.
He urged the Prime Minister to manage regional relations more strategically, prioritizing South Africa over Rwanda, as the former holds more economic potential for Lesotho than the latter.
Advocate Teboho Mojapela, leader of the Socialist Revolutionaries (SR) party, criticized the agreements as “embarrassing.”
He claimed the agreements were made to benefit a certain group, not Basotho, and accused Premier Matekane of “acting as a proxy for South Africa and serving its interests”.
He appealed to Mr Matekane to reconsider the agreements and prioritize the needs of his own citizens.
The Director MWA-Lesotho, Lerato Nkhetše, expressed concern and disappointment over the South African government’s continued delay in approving the 90-day visa agreement.
Mr Nkhetše said it was disheartening that after three years of negotiations, South Africa had repeatedly responded that the request was “still under consideration.”
He noted that the Prime Minister, Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Relations, Lejone Mpotjoana, and Local Government, Chieftainship, Home Affairs and Police, Lebona Lephema, had all met with South African authorities, only to receive the same response.
While Mr Nkhetše acknowledged the government’s negotiation efforts, he criticized the lack of inclusivity in the process.
He stressed the importance of involving civil society organizations and other stakeholders affected by border movement in future negotiations “to ensure outcomes that truly reflect the needs of the people”.