Tshukudu transfer unlawful � court
Innocent Selatlhwa | Friday April 22, 2016 10:50
Delivering judgment yesterday, Justice Harold Ruhukya said it was clear from submission that Tshukudu was not consulted prior to his transfer. “Respondent’s lawyer Mr [Sono] Seisa strengthened the applicant’s argument that his rights were taken away by conceding that the immediate suspension could not be reversed as it was already taken and implemented,” he said.
Tshukudu, who is also the Botswana Teachers Union (BTU) president was on April 8, 2016 transferred from his position as senior lecturer at Tlokweng College of Education to the MTC as chief administration officer (I).
His lawyer, Mboki Chilisa argued that his client was not afforded a chance to respond as his transfer was immediate.
He also argued that Tshukudu had no administration training as he has always been a teacher all his life and transferring him to the new position could lead to him losing his job as he is not likely to be efficient. Chilisa also argued that the post, which had been vacant for years, could have been filled by other government employees with administration skills. He said the transfer was meant to bar his client from contesting the BTU presidency at its upcoming congress.
Seisa, who was representing the employer, conceded to a point raised by Chilisa that there was contradiction in Ruth Maphorisa’s answering affidavit as in one paragraph she stated that Tshukudu knew about the agenda of the meeting that was held on April 6 prior to the issuing of the letter. In the other paragraph Maphorisa said the decision to transfer him was already taken before the meeting.
Seisa also argued that the decision could not be reversed as it has already been implemented. “Even though the applicant has not shown up for duty, he has already been transferred to his new office, nothing can be done,” he said.
However Ruhukya ruled that if he finds the transfer to have been unlawful, the court order will have to be followed and Tshukudu reinstated to his position.
The case will be heard on April 26 for the respondents to demonstrate to court as to why they should not be instructed to reverse the transfer in 30 days from the day of the judgment.