Storm Damage at Moshoeshoe I Airport Raises Questions Over Procurement and Oversight

A recent public statement by Minister of Public Works and Transport, Matjato Moteane, following storm damage at Moshoeshoe I International Airport has reignited scrutiny over the airport rehabilitation project, particularly around conflict of interest, procurement irregularities, and the technical competence of the appointed contractor. The statement, issued on Facebook, provided an operational update, estimating that about 30 percent of the roof sheeting requires replacement, that project delays could reach eight weeks, and that insurers had already been engaged. Minister Moteane also noted that the contractor was clearing the site and assured that the airport would reopen in time for scheduled flights.

Observers have noted that the statement read more like a project manager’s update than a political overview, with the minister providing technical assessments, material availability projections, and timelines. This approach has drawn renewed attention when considered alongside the findings of Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee (PAC), which previously warned of blurred lines between political authority, procurement oversight, and contractor involvement in the airport project.

The PAC report flagged multiple concerns. The M184 million airport rehabilitation contract was awarded under irregular procurement procedures, using an Expression of Interest process for a project that far exceeded the M50 million threshold requiring open international tendering. The committee found that the successful bidder, LSP Construction, had no prior experience in airport rehabilitation projects and relied on the profiles of other firms to demonstrate capacity. Without these attached profiles, LSP would not have met the basic requirements of the Expression of Interest.

Conflict of interest was another concern highlighted by the PAC. Tender documents submitted by LSP included entities previously associated with Minister Moteane, which may have violated Section 59 of the Public Procurement Act 2023, requiring public officials to avoid both actual and perceived conflicts. PAC also warned that inadequate technical oversight, including the absence of an independent aviation engineering consultant and supervision left to an inexperienced ministry architect, exposed the project to risks of poor workmanship, cost escalation, and delays.

The recent storm damage has intensified these concerns. While extreme weather cannot be solely blamed on contractor performance, the scale of the damage has raised questions about design choices, materials, and workmanship. Prior studies by ICT, ACSA, and LTE had already identified structural issues, making repeated work under the current contract a potentially inefficient use of public funds.

PAC’s recommendations now appear prescient. The committee called for the termination of the LSP contract, re-tendering under an open international process, disciplinary action against senior ministry officials, and further investigation by law enforcement. Minister Moteane’s latest statement, rather than resolving concerns, underscores PAC’s central argument: that poor governance, weak separation of roles, and questionable contractor capacity can produce tangible consequences, including delays, damage, and rising costs.

As Parliament considers the next steps on the PAC report, attention is likely to focus on whether these recommendations will be implemented or if the airport rehabilitation will continue under the same cloud of controversy documented by the Committee. The episode highlights the critical importance of procurement compliance, technical oversight, and clear accountability in major public infrastructure projects.