. . . ordered to pay M91k in lost rental income
. . . accused of allowing govt to lose money
. . . Ntaitsane also under fire over procurement rules
The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) says Lesotho’s Consul General in Johannesburg, South Africa, ’Mamolefe Ntaitsane, should pay M91,000 to government in respect of rental income lost through the continued occupation of state property by an illegal tenant who has been paying half the stipulated rent since last year.
The resolution followed a tense appearance by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Relations before the committee on Wednesday, where Ntaitsane faced questions over her handling of government property, irregular maintenance contracts and other financial management concerns raised by Auditor General ’Mathabo Makenete.
The committee resolved that Ntaitsane should personally account for the M7,000 monthly rental shortfall accumulated over 13 months, from September 2025, until the tenant vacates the property.
The property, valued at M14,000 in monthly rental, was occupied by a non-government employee only identified as “Mary”, who continued paying M7,000 instead of the full amount.
The committee heard that upon Ntaitsane’s arrival at the Johannesburg Consulate in April 2025, Mary was already occupying the government-owned property under an arrangement with the previous head of mission.
The tenant had reportedly been paying rent into the former Consul General’s personal bank account prior to September 2025 when Ntaitsane gave her government account.
Ntaitsane acknowledged to the PAC that she aware that the rental payments should be channelled through an official government account.
The committee questioned why she allowed the tenant to remain in the property without a formal agreement and continue paying less than the stipulated amount.
In response, Ntaitsane said she had instructed Mary to deposit the rent into a government’s account after discovering that payments were being made into an employee’s personal account.
However, she noted, the tenant refused to pay the full monthly rental and continued paying M7,000.
Asked whether the tenant was occupying the property legally or illegally, Ntaitsane described her status as being somewhere in between, a response that did not satisfy the committee.
She explained that she had allowed Mary to remain in the property temporarily while arrangements were being made to have her removed.
“As a diplomatic mission, or myself as the head of the mission, I can’t take the law into my hands and forcefully push Mme Mary from the house. I can only do that through a court directive. I only gave her a government account because I know that since that is government property, the rent should go through a proper account number. She was already paying M7,000 and refused to pay M14,000,” Ntaitsane indicated.
However, PAC chairperson ’Machabana Lemphane-Letsie argued that by providing the tenant with an official government account through which to pay rent, Ntaitsane had effectively acknowledged her continued occupation of the property.
“By giving her the government account number for her to pay rent, you legalised her stay. This person is illegally occupying government property. As the head of the mission, you should have acted to vacate her. Now that you gave her a formal channel to pay rent, it means you acknowledged her as a tenant,” Lemphane-Letsie said.
She further accused Ntaitsane of allowing the government to continue losing money by accepting half the rental amount despite knowing that the property was state-owned.
The fact that the previous head of mission had left did not absolve Ntaitsane of responsibility for safeguarding government assets under her supervision, she pointed out.
“It is a decision of this committee, and we are going to communicate it to Parliament. We communicate to you, PS (Principal Secretary in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Relations, Thabang Lekhela), that Mme Ntaitsane should pay that outstanding amount from September 2025 until she moves the tenant from that house.
“She has to pay it. She has to be accountable, so she understands that as the head of a diplomatic mission, she is entrusted to protect government property under her mission,” Lemphane-Letsie stressed.
Ntaitsane also came under scrutiny over the engagement and payment of contractors who undertook repairs and maintenance works at the Johannesburg Consulate without formal service contracts.
During the proceedings, she failed to demonstrate to the committee that she had followed the applicable procurement regulations when engaging contractors to undertake repairs and renovation works on government properties.
Asked whether she had applied any provisions of the law when engaging the contractors, Ntaitsane admitted: “I didn’t apply any clause of the law when engaging the contractors.”
According to the audit findings presented by Auditor General ‘Mathabo Makenete, a contractor entered into a one-year service contract with the Johannesburg Consulate on March 7, 2024. However, the agreement was not renewed after its expiry, despite the contractor continuing to carry out repair and maintenance works.
The audit further established that the contractor had been engaged since the 2022/23 financial year without a formal contract in place.
During the period under review, payments amounting to M1.86 million were made to the contractor, who also claimed an outstanding balance of M294,850.
Ntaitsane confirmed that the contractor had been paid this outstanding amount despite the absence of a valid service contract.
Another contractor was also engaged to undertake repairs and maintenance works without a formal service agreement and received M293,089 during the 2024/2025 and 2025/2026 financial years.
Makenete warned that breaches of the Treasury Regulations of 2014 exposed government to irregular, unauthorised and potentially fraudulent expenditure, as payments could have been made for work not undertaken or at arbitrarily determined prices.
The Auditor General also raised questions over the management of government vehicles allocated to the Johannesburg Consulate.
Her audit established that the Mission was operating with only one official vehicle, which was assigned to the Consul General.
The remaining vehicles previously allocated to the consulate were reportedly in poor mechanical condition and beyond economical repair.
However, the audit found that the consulate had failed to provide supporting documentation to substantiate the assessment of the vehicles.
Such documentation included condition reports, mechanical evaluations, cost-benefit analyses, disposal approvals and evidence of compliance with government vehicle management and disposal procedures.
Makenete warned that the absence of these records exposed the government to continued wasteful expenditure and the loss of value for money.
The PAC proceedings continue.
