Axed PEEPA CEO vindicated
Sharon Mathala | Monday October 10, 2022 06:00
The court ruled that Moumakwa’s dismissal by the then Minister Minister of Presidential Affairs, Nonofho Molefhi was both unlawful and procedurally wrong and unfair.
But what could have caused his firing? Moumakwa’s woes began when his board Chairperson, Tiny Kgatlwane investigated and reported her CEO to the then Minister for misconduct.
At the heart of her concerns with her CEO was that Moumakwa had flouted procedure and purchased a motor vehicle that was way above the agreed limit. “The agency (PEEPA) had budgeted for an amount of P 1, 200,000.00 for the purchase of the vehicle.
The Board chairperson told the court that what actually happened was that PEEPA procured a more expensive Range Rover sport 4.4 HSE dynamic at a cost of P 1,442,000.00,” reads the judgement in part.
According to the board chairperson the vehicle was purchased by Moumakwa and his staff without the input of the board. Another issue raised by the board was that Moumakwa had increased salaries for some staff without the input of the board as well over expenditure by Moumakwa on the agency credit card and travels without proper explanation.
In light of this, the board decided to suspend Moumakwa on June 19, 2019. An investigation was carried out and the board found Moumakwa guilty. The board made recommendations to the Minister.
The court, however, did not agree with PEEPA board on procedure as during the said investigation, the court found that PEEPA never called Moumakwa to “be interviewed or obtain comments from the Chief executive Officer concerned”.
It is further stated on court record that after receiving the recommendation from the board to fire Moumakwa, Molefhi then notified the then CEO to show cause why she should not be dismissed from work as per the board recommendations. A day before the set date by the then Minister for him to show cause why, the CEO wrote to the Minister asking for an extension citing ill health. Three days later he was fired.
In its judgement the court found that Molefhi was wrong. “The evidence in this case is that the responsible Minister extended an invitation to the applicant to make representation to him showing cause, if any, why the adverse decision of dismissal should not be implemented as recommended by the PEEPA board. The undisputed evidence is that before the applicant could make such representations for reasons of reported ill health.
The Minister terminated his employment.
The question by this court is why did the Minister give the applicant the opportunity if he did not believe that it was fair to do so? Once again the court agrees with Attorney Moitshepi for the applicant that the Minister gave with one hand and took away with the other, and this was clearly procedurally unfair," pronounced court president of the Industrial Court, Goemekgabo Tebogo-Maruping. Moumakwa who was on a five-year term contract had approached the court seeking reinstatement with back pays or compensation to the balance of his remaining contract terms.
“The court is persuaded that the issues regarding the procurement of the applicant’s official vehicle in particular, point to a soured relationship and damaged trust and it is clear that the relationship is no longer tenable," Justice Tebogo-Maruping further said. In the end the Industrial Court ruled that Moumakwa is entitled to three months compensation. “Given the circumstances of this case, the court has determined that a fair and appropriate award of compensation for the applicant would be an equivalent of his salary for three months," Justice Tebogo-Maruping concluded.