ZACC ordered to pay US$300 000
The Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission (ZACC) has been ordered by the Labour Court to pay US$305 417 in outstanding allowances to three former managers who were dismissed last year over corruption charges.
Last year, ZACC fired Christopher Chisango, a former general manager finance, administration and human resources; Edwin Mubataripi, a former general manager (prevention and advocacy); and Gibson Mangwiro, ex-chief accountant, following internal disciplinary hearings that found them guilty of corruption.
The three were fired from ZACC after being linked to corruption activities involving the commission’s former chief executive officer, Ngonidzashe Gumbo.
Gumbo was jailed for two years last year for defrauding the commission of US$435 000 in 2015.
He was said to have bought a property to be used as ZACC offices in Harare’s Mt Pleasant area using the US$435 000. He, however, registered the property in the name of a company he jointly owned with his subordinates.
The trio, however, approached the Labour Court seeking a review of the manner in which the disciplinary proceedings that led to their dismissal were conducted.
Although the matter regarding the manner in which they were dismissed is still pending, the Labour Court has ordered ZACC to pay outstanding allowances that the three were owed before they were dismissed.
They are represented by Albert Chambati of Chambati, Mataka and Makonese Attorneys.
A labour officer identified as Mr Sabilika, who presided over the case, observed that an anti–corruption allowance is contractual in terms of section 10 of the claimants’ contract of employment.
“The averment that such was not to be paid because it was not approved by Treasury, therefore, lacks merit and legal basis. It is also my considered view that a claim for school fees, holiday and clothing allowances are also contractual benefits, which must not need approval by another body or Treasury. The respondent’s averment, which is against the contractual benefits therefore lacks merit,” said Sabilika.
He noted that there was need for ZACC to justify why some of the allowances were approved while others were not because no evidence was produced to validate the claims that were approved.
On the issue of home landline allowances paid to the service provider, the tribunal was of the view that nonpayment usually affects the respondent unless the claimant could show prejudice suffered.
On the aspect of purchase of personal vehicles, this was determined in favour of the claimants.
It was directed that fuel allocation must be quantified by the trio since ZACC did not show or prove to the tribunal as to when such benefits were given.
“Whereupon after reading the papers filed in submission, the respondent, Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission be and is hereby ordered to pay first claimant Chisango US$151 308, second claimant Mangwiro US$40 747 and third claimant, Mutaripi US$113 962,” ordered the labour officer.
In the court papers, Chisango had submitted that he was owed US$151 865 in respect of terminal benefits arising from his contract of employment.
Out of the total, US$73 145,25 was owed under the anti-corruption allowance, US$4 039 owed as holiday allowance, US$560 owed as home landline allowance, US$8 400 clothing allowance, US$3 564 school fees and US$60 000 for the Nissan Navara double cab which he was entitled to purchase.
The second claimant, Mangwiro claimed a total of US$40 787 after he successfully submitted that he was entitled to purchase his personal issue vehicle in terms of ZACC’s vehicle policy.
He further attached a quantified claim of allowances owed as follows, landline telephone allowance US$420 fuel US$720 and anti-corruption allowance US$34 648.
The third claimant, Mubataripi submitted that he was owed a total of US$114 522 in respect of terminal benefits quantified as follows, an anti-corruption allowance of US$94 540, fuel allowance amounting to US$4 039, school fees allowance of US$3 528, landline allowance of US$560 and clothing allowance of US$5 400.
The claimant also submitted that he had the right to purchase his personal issue motor vehicle.
In mitigation, ZACC submitted that the claimant’s contract of employment on benefits clause 10 states that any of the benefits included shall be subject to the approval by the Minister of Finance in terms of section 14 of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act.
It was also submitted that the purchase of the vehicles was not approved because the trio were dismissed from employment on charges of misconduct. ZACC also submitted that the anti-corruption allowance could not be paid since it was not approved by Treasury.
On the aspect of holiday allowances, it was noted that the trio had since received this benefit through a quasi fiscal scheme operated by the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe. It was also submitted that the respondents did not receive approval or Treasury concurrence giving the greenlight on the reimbursement or payment of such an allowance.
Responding to the issue of landline allowances, the respondent indicated that it can only be done upon production of proof of payment to the service provider.
ZACC also submitted that the clothing allowance claimed was not approved by Treasury and the claimants never received the allowance since the time when they signed the employment contracts.
It was also noted that the vehicle retention scheme could not be claimed since it was a scheme under the RBZ. Financial Gazette
