Lesotho’s view
Under Tente Tente’s management, the project has experienced delays of more than 12 months within 22 months and had a budget deficit of more than R15bn. The Lesotho Highlands Development Authority board unilaterally decided to reappoint Tente without consulting the Lesotho Highlands Water Commission and “this irregular reappointment was based on an irregular motivational statement solicited from Tente”.
The board admitted to delaying the consultation process due to disagreements among its members. Despite this admission, the board was adamant that the timing of the consultation would not have affected their endorsement of Tente. This meant the board had a predetermined intent to reappoint Tente.
The board conceded that it appointed Tente despite “evident fundamental deficiencies in management and leadership”. It admitted it failed to address these “pre-identified shortcomings”. Because of his “significant leadership deficiencies, which persisted unresolved throughout the five-year terms”, the board’s decision to reappoint him was “primarily based” on his technical capabilities which the Lesotho government “deemed less crucial to the role”.
SA’s view
The government believed the Lesotho government’s use of “absolute adjectives” such as “significant deficiencies” and “chronic underperformance” to spotlight Tente’s initial tenure is arguable.
A presentation on his recruitment in 2019 revealed his weaknesses were remediable with appropriate support.
Attributing the project delays and underperformance of the contractors solely on Tente is “unfair and unsupported”.
The Lesotho Highlands Development Authority board acknowledged that Tente had areas to improve but did not believe they should sabotage his reappointment. The project environment, political dynamics and governance structure did not support Tente to succeed.
The Lesotho government’s view that the Lesotho Highlands Development Authority board failed to engage the commission before reappointing Tente is inaccurate.
The board engaged the commission on two occasions. That consultation process might have been “clumsy” at first but
deeming it “fatally flawed is unsustainable”.
The SA government has a different take on the legal requirement for the Lesotho Highlands Development Authority board to appoint the CEO “in consultation with” the commission. It understands that to “imply that an appointing party would seek advice and input from the consulted party before a decision is finalised but retains the authority for the final resolution. If the intent was for the CEO to be jointly appointed, concurrence would have been explicitly prescribed in the prescripts.”
The board considered reappointing Tente or recruiting another CEO. Reappointing him was considered the “most prudent route” based on the need for continuity, stability and his technical strength as well as managing the confidence of stakeholders, lenders, service providers and the market.
A new CEO would face a steep learning curve because of the project’s complexities and the critical stage of the project “leaves no room for experimentation”.
The SA government recommended that Tente’s reappointment be approved but priority should be on a robust turnaround strategy, rigorous accountability mechanisms, strong oversight arrangements and a conducive project environment.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.