Court upholds senior public servant's dismissal
High Court Judge Bugalo Maripe has dismissed an application by a Senior officer from the Ministry of Finance who wanted her dismissal from employment to be set aside.
Thabologo Galekhutle, a Principal Accounts Officer based in Serowe had her employment terminated following a disciplinary process and a recommendation in that regard.
She was accused of having made improper reversal of two receipts, one for the amount of P29, 480 on the 20th August 2015 and another for the amount of P23, 564.65 on the 13th January 2016, together amounting to a combined sum of P53, 044.65 from the government Accounting and Budgeting Systems (GABS), without authority.
Galekhutle, a former Botswana Public Employees Union (BOPEU) Treasurer General, approached the court seeking to review correct and set aside on grounds of irrationality, illegality and irregularity; reinstatement to the position Principal Accounts Officer and with attendant back pays and entitlement.
Justice Maripe stated that Galekhutle’s basis for review have been found to have no merit and have to be dismissed.
He said a full disciplinary enquiry was instituted, running from the 26th to 27th May 2021 and the 29th June 2021. The applicant according to the judge was accompanied by a union representative who conducted the defence on her behalf.
He said the record shows that apart from certain preliminary points raised by the union representative, relating mainly to promptness of the proceedings and sufficiency of the charge sheet, there were other complaints relating to the inadequacy of the matter as certain witnesses which the defence believed to be key were not called.
“Sitting as the reviewing court I am not concerned about the merits or demerits of the charges that were preferred against the Applicant, that is whether or not she misappropriated the money as alleged. My task is to determine if the process she was subjected to culminating in her dismissal was fair and legally sound. I am concerned with the process or procedure, and not the merits,” Justice Maripe said.
He said it is not sufficient for a party to allege bias merely by reason that they are unhappy with the decision made. The party alleging bias on the part of the adjudicator or other decision makers must make factual averments which demonstrate the presence of that interest, he said.
“The court will then decide if any interest is established, and whether it is sufficient to disqualify the adjudicator or decision maker and set the decision aside. So in this case what facts have been alleged to indicate the presence of an interest on the part of the adjudicator?
“The first factual averment made is that the chairperson failed to disallow hearsay evidence. This does not show any interest which a reasonable bystander could understand to be an inclination on her part towards the complainant or a pre-disposition against the applicant,” the judge said.
According to the judge, the applicant has raised quite a potpourri of issues, many of which cannot be accommodated on the three broad bases for judicial review. He said some actually evince grounds of appeal.
He explained that in his view, once it was demonstrated that the password used to reverse the receipts was that of Galekhutle, and she in this case does not dispute, then a presumption arose that it was her who used it. This is because passwords are personalised, and not shared unless the holder deliberately gives another access to it, Justice Maripe explained.