Richard sues Parly over his dismissal
Innocent Selatlhwa | Friday March 24, 2017 16:09
“Notice is given to you in terms of the provisions of the Act that the above stated claimant intends to institute proceedings against the Clerk of the National Assembly and the Attorney General of Botswana in her capacity as law agent of the aforementioned in terms of Section 3 (2) of the Act,” reads the notice.
Richard, who is based in Canada, wants an order declaring that it is not contrary to Section 37 (c) of the Public Service Act for persons employed as senior administration officers/researchers to be engaged in activities of a political nature; Alternatively, an order declaring Section 37(c) of the Public Service Act under which the claimant was dismissed, unconstitutional and striking it down as such; An order declaring that the dismissal of the claimant was therefore unlawful and directing that the claimant be paid all his salaries and emoluments retrospectively from the date of dismissal.
According to the dismissal letter, the decision was taken purportedly in compliance with Section 37 (c) of the Public Service Act (PSA) which bars public servants from engaging in activities outside their official duties that are likely to involve them in political controversy or lead them to taking improper advantage of their position in the public service.
Chilisa argues that his client’s dismissal was unlawful insofar as: The disciplinary process that lead to his dismissal was marred with procedural and substantive unfairness; Section 37 (c) was not applicable to the claimant or any officer serving in such position.
The claimant not barred from active political participation due to the already pre-existing political nature of his appointment which tenure was directly linked to the Member of Parliament aforementioned; the application of the Section 37 (c) of the PSA to the claimant was an unjustifiable infringement of his constitutional right to freedom of expression and association.
Chilisa also argues that his client’s first dismissal letter was issued prior to his assent and signature of the disciplinary hearing minutes and falsely asserts that the claimant was given an opportunity to advance factors in mitigation when such was not availed to him.
The failure to present factors in mitigation is given as one of the reasons for the decision to ultimately dismiss the claimant from the public service; the decision to terminate his contract of employment was predetermined.