BDP activists, STC locked in allowances feud
Lebogang Mosikare | Friday September 25, 2020 16:38
Over the years, members of the opposition have lambasted the BDP for using the dispensation of nominated councillors to placate some of its activists who lost in the primary and general elections.
The opposition also expressed displeasure about the dispensation saying that it was one of the ways that the BDP was using to shore up its campaign finances.
STC is made up of nine councillors, out of which only one is from a ward in the Nata-Gweta constituency where the council is situated while the rest are nominated councillors.
All the councillors at STC attend council sessions and its associated business from outside the Nata-Gweta constituency since STC does not provide them with accommodation.
In the process, they incur transport costs and other related expenses whenever they travel to Sowa Town (ST) for official business.
When the issue of allowances started in 2018, the then Minister of Local Government and Rural Development, Pelonomi Venson-Moitoi, threatened to dissolve STC should the councillors paralyse its business.
Venson-Moitoi contemplated to dissolve STC after the eight councillors stopped attending council errands if STC did not meet their transport demands-a situation that once caused STC to fail to form a quorum.
Some of the councillors did not budge and took the legal route to solve their impasse with STC.
However, according to a case filed before Justice Lot Moroka, only two BDP activists, Botho Ntirang and Pearl Goitseone Lekau, are still pursuing the matter.
Ntirang lost the BDP primary elections in Tonota to former Minister of Youth Empowerment, Sport and Culture Development (MYSC), Thapelo Olopeng, prior to the 2019 general elections.
Similarly, the current mayor of Francistown, Godisang Radisigo, vanquished Lekau when she tried her luck to become a councillor of Satellite South ward.
Last week, Justice Lot Moroka ruled in favour of Ntirang and Lekau when they applied for condonation of late filing of their declaration albeit with costs.
Said Moroka: “The Plaintiffs shall pay the costs of the application to the defendant. The defendant shall file plea within 14 days… The matter is set down for Initial Case Management Conference on October 19”
According to the Plaintiffs’ Declaration, they were sitting nominated councillors of STC since October 2014 to October 23, 2019…
“Ntirang is a resident of Tonota while Lekau is a resident of Francistown. Plaintiffs meet for scheduled council meetings and other official business of STC as and when they are called to attend. Due to lack of official accommodation or private ones for either renting or temporary lodging in ST, Plaintiffs commute from their respective places of abode to attend council business in ST. Plaintiffs from October 2014 up to October 23, 2019, used their private motor vehicles from their respective places of abode whenever they attend business in ST,” says the declaration.
“Over the years since they assumed office as councillors, the Plaintiffs have demanded that the Defendant pays them for mileage to compensate them for use of their private cars to travel to ST and for subsistence allowance but the Defendant has refused to accede to the Plaintiffs’ demands. The issue has been raised in various council sessions where it was resolved that the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiffs mileage and subsistence allowance whenever they attend official council business in STC.”
To buttress their claim, the plaintiffs made reference to various minutes of STC in 2016 pertaining to the issue of allowances.
“…Notwithstanding the above, the defendant has refused and/or neglected to pay the Plaintiffs for mileage. The Defendant is therefore indebted to the Plaintiffs for mileage of all trips they undertook to ST using their private cars from their date of assumption of duty to October 23, 2019… We therefore pray for judgment in the following terms: Plaintiffs are entitled to be paid mileage whenever they commuted in their private cars to STC to attend council business, Defendant is ordered to pay the Plaintiffs amounts to be ascertained through assessment by the Registrar for all sessions and/or council business they attend at STC, costs of the suit and further and/or alternative relief,” says the Declaration signed by the Plaintiffs legal counsels, BK Mmolawa Attorneys.
However, the Defendant’s legal representatives, S Thapelo Attorneys, vehemently opposed the application.
Before Justice Moroka condoned the plaintiffs to file their declaration late, STC, among other reasons, held the view that the matter should be finalised to avoid the Defendant to suffer prejudice.
“On the issue of prejudice, the defendant is entitled to have these proceedings finalised. The Plaintiffs summons was filed in early 2018 and two years later the matter is still at the stage of the filing of a Declaration.
Such an inordinate delay is prejudicial to the Defendant because employees leave their jobs, others die, memories fade and last but not least, it is expensive. The plaintiffs in this matter don’t deserve the court’s indulgence, the court bent backwards to accommodate them. When the Plaintiffs were served with the Defendant’s application for the dismissal of their claim, the Plaintiffs even knew that that they had not complied with the order of this court delivered on April 21, 2019 and did not bring a counter-application for leave to file their declaration out of time,” STC submitted.
“Instead they confined themselves to opposing the defendant’s application but the court in dismissing the defendant’s application and in the interest of justice and progress, on its own accord, gave the plaintiffs an opportunity to file their Declaration which they squandered. In conclusion, we pray that the Plaintiffs’ application be dismissed with costs. In dismissing the Plaintiffs action in terms of Order 42 Rule 12 (c) for the reason that the Plaintiffs have failed to comply with court deadlines. In the event that the court is inclined to indulge the Plaintiffs, we pray that they should be ordered to pay the Defendant’s costs on the scale between attorney and own client which costs should be made before any further pleadings are filed,” said the defendant.