Parliament should adopt proposed disciplined forces Amendment Bills
Dithapelo Keorapetse | Friday April 28, 2017 14:58
Regarding the BDF and or Section 137 of its Act, the Bill seeks to make repress statutory provisions to bar the making of deductions of the pay of officers and soldiers by reason of such officers or soldiers being the subject of disciplinary proceedings within the army, or by reason of facing charges before a court martial or criminal charges before a court of law.
Concerning Prisons Officers, the object of the Bill is to delete the provisions of section 52 of the Prisons Act Cap 21:03, which requires that a portion of the salary of an officer who is interdicted pursuant to being charged for an offence, be deducted for any sum being not more than one half of his or her salary. Further, the purpose of the Bill, is to bring about uniformity in the conditions of work for officers under interdiction and facing charges for offences under the Act, with those of other Government employees undergoing disciplinary process, or facing criminal charges.
Clause 2 amends Section 52 of the Act by substituting for that Section, a new Section with only three sub-clauses, the effect of which is a total removal of provisions from Section 52, which provide the statutory basis for deduction of portions of salaries of officers under interdiction.
A draft of the Police Amendment Bill presented is intended to delete the provisions of section 13 of the Police Act Cap 21:01, which provides that an officer who is interdicted pursuant to being charged before a court or a Board with a criminal or disciplinary offence, shall receive a portion of his or her salary not being less than one half of his or her salary. Further, the object of the Bill is to bring about uniformity in the conditions of work for officers under interdiction and facing charges for offences under the Act, with those of other Government employees undergoing disciplinary process, or facing criminal charges.
Clause 2 amends Section 13 of the Act by substituting for that Section, a new Section with only three sub-clauses, the effect of which is a total removal of provisions from Section 13, which provide the statutory basis for deduction of portions of salaries of officers under interdiction.
In terms of the Public Service Act, 2008 which took effect in 2010, civil servants who are indicted are to be paid full salary and not a portion of their emolument. Section 35(3) specifically provides that “An employee’s salary shall not be withheld during the period of his or her suspension”. However, when the benefit was conferred on civil servants, members of the disciplined forces were left out by not accordingly amending the laws regulating their employment.
The mover of the three Bills above seeks to ask Parliament to also include members of the forces on the said benefit. It is unfair not to include soldiers, police officers and prison waders in the benefit. Paying an officer who is facing either external or internal charges full pay is in line with the notion of ei incumbit probation qui dicit, non qui negat or the presumption of innocence; that the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies.
The officers facing charges, either internal disciplinary or criminal charges before the courts, must be presumed innocent until proven otherwise. Paying them a portion of their salary is punishment and therefore unreasonable. Punishment by way of loss of income or anything should come as a result of a finding on the guilt by a competent court of law.
The men and women in uniform are unmotivated because of poor conditions of service; they are poorly remunerated, are promoted after longer periods of time, if they are lucky to be promoted, and are seldom debt free. There is no special pay model or X-Factor for the disciplined forces. Ideally a country must keep a young motivated and disciplined army, police force or prison warders. For instance, BDF soldiers retire at 45 years or after 20 years of service or for senior officers mostly at 55 years of age. Consequently, former army officers end up with monthly pensions of 20%-30% of their last salary or less, instead of the ideal 75% of last salary. This therefore, condemns former BDF soldiers to poverty upon retirement.
Some officers of the disciplined forces live in tents, others in dilapidated houses while many including those who are married, live in shared accommodation.
Career development is a challenge; there are soldiers, police officers and prison warders who haven’t been promoted for over ten years, training including attainment of academic and other qualifications is slow. Selection for training and development is not systematic, it is haphazard and unfair. Self-development is extremely difficult because of the nature of disciplined forces duties. Some officers are misplaced in various units putting their careers in jeopardy.
Because of these already existing deplorable conditions in the army, police and prisons, it is even more difficult for the officers who are indicted and are receiving a portion of their pays. Parliament should therefore adopt the aforementioned Bills as a step towards addressing the plight of men and women in the army, the police and the prison services.
Editor’s note: This is Honourable Dithapelo Keorapetse’s last column with Mmegi following restructuring of columns of the publication. We thank Mr Keorapetse for his contribution and wish hiM all the best in his future endevours.