In a recent judgment, the Court of Appeal (CoA) said the five soldiers, who hold Diploma in Accounting and Business Studies (DABS), weren't entitled to the delinking benefits.
The CoA judge argued that the applicants’ review of their conditions of service, pay, allowances, entitlements and rewards was the preserve of the Defence Council.
"There was no argument from the soldiers that the Defence Council introduced any delinking exercise from which they could then lay a claim or right," Justice Mercy Garekwe said.
The five applicants were appealing a 2024 High Court decision that dismissed their review application after they decried the removal from the delinking exercise and manner of stoppage.
They contended that they were never notified of any process that led to the reduction of their salaries, nor were they invited to make representations before such a detrimental decision directly affecting them was taken.
The officers make up a group that had also taken the Commander to court for the delinking exercise grievances.
Justice Garekwe explained that for the officers to rely on the Directorate of Public Service Management (DPSM) directives and savingrams wasn't applicable to them as members of the BDF, as the issue of delinking falls squarely within the formation of the human resource policy and/or the salary and grading administration, or the grading and evaluation of Public Service jobs by the director of DPSM.
"To the extent that Public Service Act (PSA) specifically excludes disciplined forces from its operation, the BDF Act has created the Defend Council whose role is to review the pay, allowances, entitlements, rewards and other conditions of service of the BDF members," she said.
She also stated that any delinking exercise for the BDF members, therefore, has to come from the Defence Council and not DPSM.
The judge added that the mere fact that the directives and savingrams were addressed to the Commander doesn't change the letter of the provisions of both the PSA and the BDF Act.
Moreover, she said the PSA was clear in its exclusion of the members of the disciplined forces from its application and that the BDF Act was unambiguous in its text that the Defence Council is the body responsible for reviewing conditions of service of members of the BDF.
Facts of the matter are that the soldiers' case before the High Court was that sometimes in 2012, the BDF introduced a delinking exercise in terms of which salaries of soldiers and or officers were adjusted to align with their professional qualifications.
The exercise was reportedly aimed at attracting and retaining professionals from various disciplines.
In the case, the appellants were part of a group of soldiers who held a minimum of DABS but acquired at different times.
According to the court papers at the time the exercise was implemented via the Commander's savingram of July 10, 2012, it didn't contemplate DABS but rather the Association of Accounting Technicians (AAT).
"On August 22, 2017, however, another savingram from the office of the Commander accorded DABS the delinking status under category of Accounting Technicians. The benefit of the delinking exercise was extended to the appellants but subsequently stopped," read the soldiers' case documents.
They decried the manner of stoppage, arguing they had adjusted their lives in accordance with increments created by the delinking exercise and thus incurred obligations in line with their newly improved financial capabilities.
The Commander's case on the other hand was that following the delinking exercise, the BDF realised that some members who benefited didn't have the requisite qualifications.
They consulted through meetings and informed affected members accordingly and that they undertook the consultation exercise in such a manner owing to the numbers of the soldiers involved.
"As for the appellants, it was contended that they weren't included in the exercise when it was originally implemented in 2012 and therefore they weren't affected by the salary reductions that affected those that affected those that had benefited from such exercise unduly on account of non-qualification as they were only delinked in 2018 after they became eligible, so as I believed at the time," read the Commander's case documents.
He said the DPSM directives relied upon by the officers weren't applicable to uniformed members of the BDF which included the applicants.
