---

6 October 2026 by Motsamai Mokotjo

The signing of the $6.2 billion (M100 billion) agreement between the Government of Lesotho and US-based Convalt Energy for the Kobong Pumped Storage Hydropower project and AI Data Centre has been heralded as a historic, record-breaking investment.

It promises to transform the Kingdom from an energy-dependent nation into a regional power exporter and digital hub.

But beneath the glow of this mega-deal lies a fundamental question that must be asked before a single turbine is installed: Will the Basotho people be active participants in shaping this project, or will they remain passive spectators to a development carved out behind closed doors?

The project involves a 1,200 MW hydropower facility paired with a massive data centre in the Mokhotlong district, with a stated intention to export power and host artificial intelligence computing workloads.

The government has framed this as a privately financed initiative with no financial risk to Lesotho.

However, “no financial risk” does not equate to “democratic benefit.” This analysis argues that the critical phases of this project-the feasibility study and the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA)-represent a narrow window of opportunity to operationalise energy democracy.

If these processes are exclusionary, the Kobong project risks repeating the historical pattern of development projects in Lesotho that fail because they lack the collective sense of belonging and ownership of the very people they are meant to serve.

The feasibility study, expected to take a year, will determine the technical and financial viability of the project.

While this is undeniably a complex engineering undertaking, energy democracy scholars argue that decisions about energy infrastructure cannot be reduced to mere technical and economic calculations.

The current approach suggests that the feasibility study is being treated as a proprietary exercise, with financing arrangements to be “formalised and disclosed” only after its completion. This creates a dangerous information asymmetry.

So who exactly is at the table? Energy democracy is built on the principle that citizens, especially rural citizens who are directly affected, must have a voice in decision-making, not just consultation meetings that function as rubber stamps.

The rural highlands, where Kobong is located, are populated by communities who have historically been excluded from the benefits of energy projects, even when those projects are sited in their backyard.

Will the feasibility study include meaningful input from local community councils and traditional authorities, or will it remain the exclusive domain of Convalt’s engineers and government technocrats?

The terms of reference for the feasibility study must be made public and include social impact and local content criteria, not just geological and hydrological data.

And what local value will be generated? The agreement promises US exports of turbines and equipment worth over $2 billion.

But what about Lesotho? The feasibility study must rigorously assess the potential for local job creation, skills transfer, and the use of local materials and services.

Without this, the project becomes an enclave economy-a resource extraction operation that exports electricity to South Africa or powers an AI data centre for international clients, while the Basotho remain energy-poor.

With national electricity access rates at around 38 percent and rural access at a mere 18 percent it would be a profound injustice if a 1,200 MW project does not directly and dramatically improve household electrification rates in Lesotho.

The ESIA is the legal instrument through which environmental and social risks are assessed and mitigated. Under Lesotho’s Environment Act of 2008, the Department of Environment is mandated to oversee this process, and public consultation is a required component.

However, the mere existence of a legal requirement does not guarantee substantive democracy. So will consultation be meaningful or transactional?

Best practice, as outlined in World Bank-funded projects in Lesotho, involves identifying Interested and Affected Parties (I&APs), holding initial meetings to scope the assessment, and then returning after the draft assessment is complete to present findings and seek input on mitigation measures.

But energy democracy demands more than a checklist approach. It requires that the concerns raised by communities—about land use, water rights, cultural heritage, and livelihood disruption—actually influence the project design.

The process must include dissemination of reports in Sesotho and be accessible to rural populations, many of whom live in scattered settlements across difficult mountainous terrain. And who benefits from the “no financial risk” model?

The government claims Lesotho faces no financial risk because Convalt is taking on the investment. However, the potential conflict-of-interest revelations regarding local partners like Sekhametsi Investment Consortium, involving Public Works Minister Matjato Moteane, raise troubling questions about whether the benefits of this project are already being captured by political elites before the ESIA has even begun.

Energy democracy demands transparency in how local participation will be structured, who gets to invest, and how the spoils of this $6.2 billion venture will be distributed.

If local partners are selected through political connections rather than an open and competitive process, the project will fail the most basic test of democratic governance. And what about the water? Pumped storage hydropower is a massive consumer of water, even in a closed-loop system. Under the Water Act of 2008, all water resources are vested in the Basotho nation and held in trust by the King.

The ESIA must rigorously examine the project’s water use, its impact on downstream communities and ecosystems, and whether the water use permits granted to a foreign private company are truly in the best interests of the nation.

In a water-scarce region, exporting virtual water through electricity generation for data centres requires a full and public accounting.

The Kobong project is too big to fail, but it is also too big to get wrong. The window of the feasibility study and ESIA is the moment to embed democratic principles.

First, the full feasibility study must be published once complete, including all social, economic, and environmental data.

Second, accessible, well-publicised community hearings must be held in Mokhotlong and surrounding districts, with independent facilitators, not just project proponents.

Third, a community benefits-sharing mechanism must be established that guarantees a portion of project revenues are reinvested in local electrification, healthcare, education, and enterprise development.

Fourth, local ownership models must be explored, such as community cooperatives that can co-invest in and co-own distributed generation assets linked to the project.

Government has been stridently pursuing renewable energy initiatives, but as scholars have noted, its troubles in managing the energy sector result from an exclusionary technical-economic strategy that subverts citizen participation.

The Kobong project is a chance to break that cycle.

The Convalt Energy deal is a historic opportunity. But history will not judge Lesotho by the size of the investment alone.

It will judge whether the lights came on in rural villages, whether local people got the jobs and the skills, and whether the Basotho people had a genuine say in the destiny of their own energy future.

The feasibility study and ESIA are not merely technical hurdles to be cleared. They are the first and most critical test of whether energy democracy will be prioritised, or whether “no financial risk” will become a convenient excuse for no democratic accountability.

The questions must be asked now, before the concrete is poured and the water is diverted.

The views expressed in this article are solely that of the author and do not any away represent the views of Uncensored News.