BOTUSAFE wants to hold on to lucrative tender
Innocent Selatlhwa | Friday January 13, 2017 15:58
The tri-union owned company laments that it will be shut down if they lose a tender, which initially never had an end period.
Gaborone High Court Judge, Justice Tshepo Motswagole in November 2016 interdicted and restrained government from floating a tender for provisions of services to collect debts on behalf of government from civil servants for micro lenders across the country pending finalisation of a dispute between government and BOTUSAFE Investment (PTY) LTD.
BOTUSAFE is a company owned by Botswana Public Employees Union (BOPEU), Botswana Teachers Union (BTU) and Botswana Sectors of Educators Trade Union (BOSETU). BOTUSAFE made an urgent application to restrain government from going through the tender process until the parties had resolved their disputes in terms of their 2006 Memorandum of Agreement (MoA).
Motswagole made an interim order stopping government from proceeding with a tender number FDP/TC/2/1/16-21 for provision of single central registry services pending final determination of disputes as provided in terms of clause 18 of the MoA signed by the parties on or about April 18, 2006.
BOTUSAFE attorney Mboki Chilisa said government was in breach of an agreement, which was signed by the parties in 2006. In his heads of arguments, Chilisa states that as per the agreement, there are seven grounds upon which the government could terminate the agreement; “A cession of obligations by BOTUSAFE to another entity; a failure, without sufficient cause in the opinion of Ministry of Finance and Economic Development, to redistribute the deductions received within 24 hours of receipt; a resolution passed to wind-up BOTUSAFE; a petition presented for the winding of BOTUSAFE; If as a result of majeure BOTUSAFE is unable to perform material portion of the services; if BOTUSAFE commits material breach of the terms of the agreement which is incapable of remedy; if the applicant commits material breach which is capable of remedy but fails to initiate a remedy of the breach within 7 days of receipt of notice of the breach from the government.”
Chilisa argues that it is contention by the government that mutual understanding to the effect that the services being provided under the agreement would end in 2016. He argues that the contention is not supported by the documentation before the court. He argues that the agreement states that no variation or cancellation shall be in writing and signed by both parties.
“The business of the applicant will fold overnight if another entity is constituted as the central registry. This is because it will lose its only source of income,” Chilisa argues.