Unions and govt court row heats up

BAME PIET
Staff Writer | Friday July 9, 2010 00:00

 The unions have cited the Directorate of Public Service Management (DPSM) as the first respondent while the Attorney General is the second. First to take the podium was the respondent's team led by deputy Attorney General, Abraham Keetshabe, who argued that the application was poorly done and did not meet the standard for it to be heard in court.

He said that the Attorney General's Chambers was not informed in time about the intention to sue, nor was the Director of DPSM, Festinah Bakwena.

He said the two are the most important officers in the civil service and they could not just be dragged to court without being given a chance to respond. Keetshabe said the rules are clear that for one to sue any civil servant in their capacity, they have to inform the Attorney General in time for her to respond.

The court heard that the applicants and the respondent had a scheduled meeting on June 28, in which the establishment of the Public Service Bargaining Council was to be discussed as well as its constitution.

However, it emerged that the unions will be required to renew their membership with the DPSM, something which led to the meeting being aborted. Keetshabe argued that the unions misinterpreted Validation of Membership to mean that they were not being recognised.

In his attempt to strengthen his case, he said that the DPSM only requested the unions to start their membership registration afresh, a point which prompted Justice Tshosa to seek clarification on the meaning of 'start afresh'.

Keetshabe argued that unions enjoy government recognition saying the application has not only shocked the AG, but all the senior government officials. He accused the unions of abusing the court process, even going to the extent of accusing the applicants attorney, Tshiamo Rantao, of stooping so low when he knows that the application did not meet the standards.

However, Rantao was not amused with the statement saying Keetshabe was attacking his professional credibility and not dealing with the case. He forced him to retract the remarks. 

'My lord I retract the statement,' Keetshabe said.  He insisted that the DPSM  has never harboured any agenda of de-recognising the unions and that the applicants were abusing the court process.

'My Lord, this is a classic and exceptional case of abuse of court process. This case should be nullified because it doesn't meet any standard for the court to preside over it,' he said, as he called for the applicants to pay costs. On the issue of an interim interdict sought by the unions for the extension of recognition, Keetshabe said that they have not proved that they stand to suffer prejudice, harm or irreparable damage.

He was adamant that the unions enjoy their rights and they are recognised by government. Most importantly, they should be part of the implementation of the Public Service Act that was effected two months ago.

He stated that negotiations were ongoing between the parties and that the unions rushed to the court with no facts just allegations. After two hours, he rested his case.

But, Rantao argued that the DPSM wrote a letter to the Parliamentary Labour Advisory Committee, copied to the Clerk of the National Assembly on June 25, in which the DPSM stated that the applicants would have to apply afresh to get government recognition. 

He said that in the letter the Director of DPSM confirmed that she had halted the establishment of the Public Service Bargaining Council until the unions had renewed their membership.

This, Rantao said, was going to impact badly on the welfare of the unions together with their 90,000 members. He argued that they needed the interim interdict to hold government accountable on its obligation to continue recognition of the unions.

He accused Keetshabe of treating the matter lightly despite the threats posed to freedom of association and freedom of unionisation that are enshrined in the constitution of Botswana. 

He pleaded with the court to recognise that the matter was urgent before going deeper into its merits because a lot was at stake as government is likely to do as it pleases when dealing with the unions, knowing that they have no legal muscle. He stated that the court should recognise that Keetshabe has failed to reveal what prejudice the respondents would suffer if the interim interdict was to be granted.

At this juncture, Tshosa called for an adjournment to Thursday at 11 am.