Soldiers sacked for stealing

BAME PIET
Staff Writer | Thursday January 21, 2010 00:00

 

The duo, who held senior positions, were accused of stealing 20 toners at Sir Seretse Khama Barracks in July 2006 and using military vehicle to transport the them to Motupu's house.

Representing them, attorney Phadza Kgalemang argued that the BDF commander overstepped his powers in dismissing the men because they were charged with a disciplinary offence.  He said that the BDF Act states that disciplinary offences are meant to correct and mould an individual involved and should not result in a dismissal. He said that what happened in the case of the two men was that they were tried by a commanding Officer and the matter closed. However, he said, the Commander reopened the case and dismissed them.

Kgalemang contended that in dismissing the duo, the commander was subjecting them to double punishment for a single offence. He said that a disciplinary offence remains a disciplinary matter hence it should not be extended to a civil offence. He stated that he would not have had a problem if the two were charged with a civil offence from the beginning, as they would have been subjected to a procedure applied therein. 

Kgalemang said that in a civil matter, the punishment is a dismissal and it applies to all civil servants including police and other disciplinary forces.  He said that what happened in the case of the two men was that they were given the impression that they could be punished internally and left to go on with their duties. He stated that the offence was minor and there was no need to apply harsh punishment on the two men. He stated that procedure was not followed.

But the state attorney countered that the BDF Act empowers the commander to review decisions of his juniors including the commanding officer who presided over the matter.

He added that the BDF commander has powers to discharge any officer. He said that the Act is also unambiguous on the fact that any soldier convicted of stealing service property should be dismissed immediately. He stated that the commander exercised his discretion in dismissing the two men. The attorney argued that the commander did not disregard any procedure.

He further argued that the officers had an opportunity to appeal to the Defence Council but failed to do so. He said that the two opted to attack the commander's decision. He said that any offence in the military is taken seriously, citing that even sleeping on duty could earn an officer several days in detention. He stated that the requirement for conviction is dismissal.

Kgalemang responded saying that some sections of the BDF Act are open to abuse especially if the commander could just dismiss his junior at the slightest provocation.

Kgalemang stood his ground stating that the soldiers were punished twice for a single offence hence the court should revise the decision of the commander. Judgement was reserved to next Friday.