Judge raps AG on the knuckles
Oarabile Mosikare | Tuesday May 5, 2015 13:38
This is in a matter in which a union sued the Directorate on Corruption and Economic Crime for refusing to unionise the parastatal’s workers.
Justice Ranier Busang ruled in favour of the National Amalgamated Local and Central Government and Parastatal Workers Union (NALCGPWU) last week, striking down a section of the Corruption and Economic Crime (Amendment) Act of 2013. He also ordered the Attorney General and the DCEC to pay the costs of the suit.
Delivering judgement, Busang said the AG had chosen not to come to court for arguments, nor file heads of arguments in support of its case. The Attorney General, by procedure, represents government in legal suits. “I also note that, when the case roll was called for the first time June 9, 2014, the Attorney General was not represented. I issued an order directing that the Attorney General’s answering affidavit be filed on June 20, 2014,” said Busang.
He also said the matter was tentatively set for argument on August 27, but nothing happened on the day on account of the court’s tight schedule. A new date of argument was set, being November 18, 2014, at 9 am. On November 18, 2014, NALCGPWU’s attorney, Tshiamo Rantao appeared in court at the set time, only to find the AG absent.
“The court adjourned to enable Mr Rantao to look for a representative of the Attorney General. Mr [Charles] Gulubane appeared within a short time and advised the court, that it was Mr [David] Moloise who was seized with the matter,” said Busang. “He advised that, he had already talked to Mr Moloise and had advised him to come to court.
“I adjourned the court again to wait for Mr Moloise who arrived at around 10:30 hours and indicated that he did not know that the case was coming up for argument that morning.
“He applied for a postponement and tendered costs.” The judge further continued that the AG never filed heads as scheduled on November 28, 2014. Busang said when the matter was called at 9 am on February 10, 2015, there was no representative of the AG.
“I waited for about 10 minutes for Mr Moloise to appear in case he was running late,” the judge said. “At 9:10 am I allowed Mr Rantao to argue his case in terms of Order 12 rule 15.
“Mr Rantao was on his feet until 9:55 am, at which time there was still nobody from the Attorney General’s office. “The case had been postponed at the instance of the respondents and they chose not to come to court on a date that was set to accommodate them. “I had no option but to proceed as the rules provide.
“The basis of this judgment therefore is the pleadings filed, which in the case of the respondents is the answering affidavits, the applicant’s affidavits and heads of arguments.”
Ruling in favour of the union, Busang said he did not need to be employed at the DCEC to know its core professional mandate and that it was not all of the employees who do investigation and related duties. “There is nothing in the answering affidavits that suggests that messengers, drivers, gardeners and cleaners have access to confidential and classified information,” he said.
The DCEC employees are public officers and are entitled constitutionally to join trade unions.”
Earlier last year, NALCGPWU notified the AG of its intention to sue after DCEC management instructed workers to resign from the union.
From December 2013, the union had been receiving letters of resignation from members who are DCEC employees.