Polaki is the Ombudsman Lesotho needs

PUBLIC institutions are often judged not by the speeches they make but by the uncomfortable truths they are willing to confront.

In recent years, few constitutional office bearers have demonstrated that responsibility more consistently than Ombudsman Advocate Tlotliso Polaki.

Her tenure has shown what the Office of the Ombudsman was intended to be — not a ceremonial institution that produces reports destined for shelves, but an active constitutional watchdog prepared to defend ordinary Basotho against injustice, inefficiency and abuse of power.

Whether one agrees with all her conclusions or not, there is little doubt that Adv Polaki has emerged as one of the strongest voices demanding accountability in government.

Her recent interventions reveal a pattern that should concern every citizen: institutions failing the very people they were created to serve.

Her investigation into the Home Affairs passport crisis was perhaps among the most consequential public reports in recent memory. It exposed a system paralysed by corruption, incompetence and poor planning, leaving thousands of Basotho unable to obtain passports and identity documents. But beyond statistics and administrative language, the report documented real human suffering.

People reportedly lost employment opportunities. Students failed to travel for educational programmes. Patients could not access medical treatment outside the country. Families remained trapped because government systems responsible for issuing identity documents had effectively collapsed.

Adv Polaki did not soften her findings. She spoke openly about executive paralysis, maladministration, corruption and abuse of discretion. That courage matters. Too often, public reports are written in language designed to avoid offending those in authority. Yet constitutional oversight bodies exist precisely because governments sometimes fail. Their duty is not to preserve comfort inside offices but to protect citizens outside them.

Her investigation into national waste management demonstrated the same principle. At a time when environmental concerns are often treated as secondary, she warned that the Tšoeneng dumpsite risks becoming another environmental disaster due to poor planning and weak governance. Again, the warning was not political. It was institutional. This is what constitutional accountability looks like: identifying risks before they become irreversible crises.

The Ombudsman’s findings on the Polihali Dam project further reinforced that role. According to the investigation, community consultations were often reduced to procedural exercises rather than genuine dialogue. Decisions affecting livelihoods were reportedly made before communities had meaningful opportunities to participate.

Families faced limited relocation choices and concerns over replacement housing. Equally troubling were the findings around compensation. The report revealed compensation arrears exceeding M142 million under Phase I and approximately M6.7 million under Phase II by the end of 2025.

Affected villagers argued that existing compensation structures failed to guarantee long-term security and did not adequately reflect market realities or future income losses. Again, these are not abstract policy disputes. They affect people’s homes, land and dignity.

Adv Polaki’s office has also turned attention toward conditions within correctional facilities — another area that rarely receives sustained public attention. Her findings paint a troubling picture.

Despite inmate numbers increasing by 138 percent since 2020, the Lesotho Correctional Service budget reportedly remained unchanged in real terms.

As a result, correctional authorities have been forced to prioritise food and basic necessities while infrastructure maintenance, staff development and capital investment suffered. The consequences are severe. National inmate numbers had reportedly increased from 1835 in 2023 to 2757 by March 2026.

Facilities such as Maseru Central Correctional Institution, designed for 500 inmates, were reportedly housing nearly double that number. This is not merely a correctional problem. It is a human rights issue. No democratic society should ignore conditions that compromise dignity and lawful detention.

These investigations explain why many Basotho view Adv Polaki’s office as one of the few institutions willing to ask difficult questions. That is precisely why her current constitutional dispute over her tenure should not be viewed through a narrow political lens.

Her court challenge is ultimately for judges to determine. The legal merits of her interpretation of the Tenth Amendment will be tested in court and should be respected as such.

But whatever the outcome, one principle must remain clear: oversight institutions must never be weakened because they exposed uncomfortable truths. The Ombudsman should not be treated as an enemy of the government. In fact, the government should recognise such institutions as among its most important allies.

Governments that ignore accountability often discover problems only when they become national emergencies. Strong watchdog institutions provide early warnings. They identify policy failures before public trust collapses.

Instead of hostility whenever critical reports emerge, Parliament and the executive should strengthen institutions that promote transparency and constitutional governance.

If constitutional reforms introduced transitional protections for office bearers, those provisions deserve proper legal interpretation and implementation.

More importantly, reports from oversight offices must stop becoming temporary headlines. Their recommendations should be acted upon. Because accountability cannot end when newspaper ink dries. Lesotho does not need silent watchdogs. It needs institutions willing to speak.

And if recent years are any indication, that is exactly the kind of Ombudsman Adv Polaki has tried to be.

The post Polaki is the Ombudsman Lesotho needs appeared first on Lesotho Times.