Their main contention is that the employer had failed to pay them salary back pays despite the government having issued Directives and Savingrams to that effect. The employees had taken the Directorate of Public Service Management (DPSM), DIS, and Attorney General to court seeking salary back pays effective from April 2008. Their main contention is that the employer had failed to pay them salary back pays despite the government having issued Directives and Savingrams to that effect.
The impatience of the employees follows a 2024 order by Justice Zein Kebonang of Gaborone High Court, he said the decision to not pay the officers backpays was unlawful. “The decision to not pay the officers back pays is unlawful in so far as the decision to pay is not back-dated to 2001 when Directive No.10 of 2001 came into force,” he said.
Justice Kebonang had also ordered that the decision not to pay the officers back pays was contrary to Directive No. 6 of 2008 as read with the Savingram titled Implementation of the Court Of Appeal Judgment Pertaining to Directive and Savingrams on Multiple Tilting and Grading of C-Band Positions dated May 13, 2022.
He stated that the decision not to pay officers was unlawful because they had a legitimate expectation to receive back pays effective April 2008. “The decision not to pay the employees is contrary to the parity principle, thus unlawful,” Justice Kebonang said.
The employees explained that since the order, there has been no communication as to when they will be paid as per the order and that not paying was in fact, unlawful.
“The order was clear that denying us the salary back pays was unlawful and indicated that payment be effected but since then we have not received any communication,” they said.
However, the employees acknowledged that a change of government might have delayed the implementation of the order but said it has been long since the elections to keep the blame on that. They stated that if push came to shove, they would have to approach the court again for redress, as many had been affected by the nonpayment.
Meanwhile, the lawsuit was based on the fact that about 406 employees in 2023 issued a writ of summons against the DPSM, DIS, and AG on grounds that the decision taken by the government not to pay salary back pays effective from April 2008 was unlawful.
The writ of summons came from a long standing issue between the officers and their employer on the fast tracking of employees’ progression, as the officers have in the past bemoaned that the DIS continues to ignore a court order that was issued against all ministries for salary scales and a subsequent directive by the DPSM enforcing the judgement.
The employees' concerns are in relation to the DPSM directive reportedly meant to fast track progression of public servants in the C-band category but at the DIS, it has been alleged by some employees that things have not been effected as per the directive. According to the officers, in 2007 the government introduced multiple titling and grading of C-band positions through a Savingram DPSM 13/34/9 (43) dated May 30, 2007.
The Directive was reportedly meant for all ministries but with the government realising many were not complying as a follow up to the 2007 Savingram, the government issued Directive No. 6 of 2008, where the objectives of multiple grading and titling was vividly set out.
The Directive allowed for direct appointment of graduates with appropriate academic qualifications at entry level but without experience and to facilitate faster progression of serving officers who qualify for promotion without the need for ministries to request for additional posts or resources.
In their court papers, with both the 2007 Savingram and the 2008 Directive on multiple grading and titling of C-band positions being applicable to all ministries, the DIS officers alleged that they were also included but have not yet benefited from the Savingram and the Directive. Particulars of the claim were that the officers were aggrieved by the decision taken by the government not to pay salary back pays despite the court order and the directive. “The decision is contrary to Directive No. 6 of 2008 as read with the Savingram titled Implementation of the Court of Appeal Judgement Pertaining to Directives and Savingrams on Multiple Titling and Grading of C-Band Positions dated May 13, 2022,” read the summons.
The officers, who were at the time represented by Collins Chilisa Consultants, argued that they had a legitimate expectation to receive back pays effective from April 2008 and that the decision was unlawful in so far as the decision to pay is not back dated from 2001 when the Directive No. 10 of 2001 came into force. The officers had also submitted that the government has communicated its intention to not pay them salary back pays in terms of 2008 Directive effective from 2010 when they joined the DIS.
In the summons, the officers had further argued that a cause of action was clear in the sense that in terms of Directive No. 10 of 2001, public officers have the right to be assessed and where a vacancy exists, they are to be recommended for promotion after a minimum period of two years instead of three years as was the case prior to that directive.
