When two elephants fight it's the grass that suffers

| Friday April 4, 2008 00:00

Even the Political parties who are IEC major stakeholders heard it through the media.

In all this fight of elephants (permanent Secretary to President/chairperson and secretary of IEC) which manifested itself in the media the grass (staff) have been suffering in silence as if they do not know what is happening.

With this statement we want to make our voice heard as to our understanding of the events and the cause of the fights.

The reasons cited by the former chairperson when he resigned as quoted in the media were among others interference from the PSP.

In a parliamentary statement the Minister for Presidential Affairs and Public Administration Daniel Kwelagobe stated three cases of alleged interference as follows:

* The IEC'S refusal to accept the PSP's appointment of an officer who had succeeded in an interview in favour of one who had not succeeded.

* The PSP's decision not to authorize a request for travel abroad on a benchmarking trip by staff of the office of the president who were assisting IEC Secretariat and who would be absent for an extended period with insufficient justification.

* The PSPs decision not to approve the IEC Secretary's leave and acting appointment of his Deputy because they were done in retrospect. In the Public Service leave is applied for in advance, except in cases of emergency, which also must be communicated to the approving authority. In this case, this was not done.

The Acting IEC Chairperson Omphemetse Motumise also sent a press release attempting to counter Kwelagobe's statement to parliament, which we feel he (Motumise) made without the benefit of what really is taking place in the IEC. In other words Motumise and his Commission have been misled by the Secretary and Deputy Secretary because they (Commissioners) are part-timers and the only (mis)information they have is what they receive from briefings they get from the Secretary.

In the past the IEC used to have different sub-committees made up of different commissioners dealing with issues of human resources and budgeting; elections and logistics; information and education, and legal matters.

These committees met on a regular basis with members of staff to discuss the day to day running of the IEC but unfortunately the committees have been discontinued save for information and education, and legal affairs. These committees were helpful in that the commissioners knew the goings-on at the IEC and could engage and interrogate whatever report was put before the full Commission, which the Secretary and his deputy did not like.

We will address only one point of contention being the employment of Director, ministry management to prove that the public is being misled. Motumise's statement said that they were not consulted when the PSP appointed an officer to be Director, Ministry Management. This begs the question, since when is the Commission consulted in matters of secondment, appointment, employment, transfers, training etc. of officers. One wonders why this time the Commission was expected to endorse an officer appointed by the PSP when they were never involved in the appointment of the rest of the staff.

The possible explanation of the tussle between PSP and IEC secretary and lately Motumise led commission over the employment of an officer is that the Secretary (or more specifically the Deputy Secretary who literally runs/micromanages the department on behalf of the lame-duck secretary) want somebody they can control or a boot-licker who will accord them a free reign over the government resources to use for personal benefit.

The point we want to make is that the Director, Ministry Management they want is a person who will not follow the set procedures so that secretary (or specifically his deputy) can benefit where she is not supposed to.

For example when an external trip is fully sponsored the requirement is that a quarter of full per diem be given to the travelling officer.

But in the IEC fully sponsored trips attract full per diem against the law. As a result of this one is tempted to agree with the comments made by MPs that only two officials benefit from external trips and doubt then we if these trips benefit the IEC or is a way of fund-raising for the concerned officers through per diems.

The other example that comes to mind is that deputy secretary (an equivalent of deputy permanent secretary) has been allocated an official vehicle when she does not qualify, which transports her for regular medical check-ups and even taking her to her home to the detriment of official functions of other officers in the department.

We also know that recently the Deputy Secretary has bought herself a special chair using government resources for the purpose of easing her back pain allegedly sustained in fall in one of her frequent external trips.

The long and the short of what we are saying is that all is not well at the IEC and goings-on cannot be fully addressed in press statements that we see in the private media, if we want the matter to be fully understood.

We know for a fact that there are a lot of corrupt practices at IEC which the commissioners and government are not aware of and therefore demand the following:
* An enquiry to look in to the possible misuse of financial, human and other resources by the Secretary and his Deputy

* The enquiry should look at the human resource practices specifically employments, training, external trips, high staff turnover among others.

* The results of the enquiry to be used to determine the fitness and propriety of the Secretary and Deputy secretary to hold such offices.

* The inquiry should also look in to the real cause of the sour relationship between the IEC Secretary and PSP.

* The Act establishing the IEC be expedited to clarify roles among the Commissioners, Secretary, and DPSM versus IEC staff. Currently we are government employees and as a result the PSP has authority over us guided by Public Service Act, General Orders and Public Service regulations.

* Investigation as to why after 10 years of existence the IEC does not have a scheme of service.

Our concerns are predicated on the fact that elections are very sensitive and the public image of elections depends on the activities of the election management body. We do not want the integrity of our electoral processes to be brought in to disrepute by a few individuals driven by greed and personal benefit.

In conclusion, we do not recall the PSP interfering with the core mandate of the IEC, which includes voter registration, and the conduct of free and fair elections in Botswana and outside.
 
Concerned IEC officers