Govt ordered to pay Ntaba and co K52m
The Industrial Relations Court (IRC) last Wednesday ordered government to pay a total of K52 million to people who worked under former president the late Bingu wa Mutharika for unfair dismissal.
Following the death of Mutharika on April 5 2012, the Joyce Banda administration dismissed eight people who were serving the late president at the State House.
The dismissed employees are Dr Hetherwick Ntaba who was engaged as presidential spokesperson, the Reverend Billy Gama (presidential adviser on religious affairs), Bessie Chirambo (special assistant to the president on civil society), Albert Mungomo (presidential press officer) and Francis Mphepo (senior political adviser).
Others who played different roles serving Mutharika are Henry Chiwaya, Margaret Chiponda and Edward Sawerengera.
The Attorney General’s (AG) office defended the matter heard in Blantyre and the applicants were represented by private practice lawyer Kalekeni Kaphale.
In his ruling, IRC deputy chairperson Jack N’riva found that the applicants were unfairly dismissed and were not given any reason, contrary to provisions of the Employment Act.
Said N’riva: “[Government] could have at least told the applicants the reasons for their dismissal. I am sure there was a practical reason why the applicants’ services were no longer required. That reason, coupled with a fair hearing and fair equitable actions, could have justified the dismissals.”
N’riva proceeded to award the applicants their entitlements, depending on their positions and period they served the late president.
Ntaba has been awarded K10.5 million, Gama K5 million, Chirambo over K3.6 million, Mungomo K4.2 million, Mphepo K7.3 million, Chiwaya K6.1 million and Sawerengera K11.7 million.
The AG’s officer argued earlier that the contracts were personal in nature and that following the death of the sitting president, the affected officers were frustrated such that they would not have been expected to continue serving in their capacities.
But Ntaba and his colleagues argued that in their understanding, they were serving the President and not an individual.
They said they believed they would serve the office even after the person left the office. They argued the contracts did not mention anything concerning death of a president.
The court learnt that the applicants entered into 36 months contracts of employment with the government.
After the death of Mutharika, apart from the State House, there were massive dismissals in the entire civil service and statutory corporations by the current administration.
The Chairperson and Chief Justice should know that ordinary citizens are not happy with the treatment dismissed politicians are getting in the courts. There many people that are still waiting for cases at the IRC to be settled and one wonders why the Ntabas who were only dismissed 18 months ago have their case settled while others who are poorer than Ntaba and company are still waiting. We are languishing in poverty after being dismissed by companies and there are cases that are much order than the Ntabs who on top of this looted our taxes. This is injustice by the judiciary. We are not happy with you.
Concerned citizen you are talking. iyi ndi cash gate ya mtundu winansotu iyi. Ma lawyer, ma judge ndi onse ozitcha oziwa malamulo ndi anthu oyipa kwambiri munawawona afalisi zomwe amapanga? afalisi alelo akakhala munthu olemela ndiye changuchangu. fixing ma scandal. muzawonere scandal this is exactly what is happening
This is indeed bullshit because it is more than evident that this country is for politicians and their bootlickers. What is an average Malawian citizen gaining out of this country and all the administrations that come and go. What reason and hope can politicians offer to the average citizen to encourage him/her vote for the next thief?
Za chamba basi.
This is an extract from Mafunga v Northern Region case (MATTER NUMBER IRC 35 OF 2010). You can see for yourselves how unfair these courts are.
Our agreed view is that the applicant has not demonstrated that he sought alternative employment. He did not mitigate his loss, as it were. More to that the applicant told the court that he had started alternative income generating activity. In our view, in that venture, he is in some cases getting even more that what he was getting while in the employment. There is no basis for us to award the applicant compensation as a subsequence to his dismissal. We ought to put it clearly that there is no room in the field of employment law for the award of nominal compensation. If the court finds out that the employee suffered “no conceivable injustice” they must, even if they had found unfair dismissal, have assessed the compensation at nil. The reason is that compensation would not be appropriate-Kaduya v Midway Filling station Matter Number IRC 62 of 2002. See also Rachel Zibelu Banda, Unfair Labour Practices in Malawi, A Guide to Relevant Cases and Materials, (2005) p 40