KwaZulu-Natal MEC for Finance Belinda Scott has refused to implement remedial action directed by Public Protector Thuli Madonsela who found that the province’s treasury had acted unlawfully when it failed to protect a whistle-blower under its employ.
Instead‚ her department announced on Wednesday evening that it would apply to the High Court to review and set aside the decision by the public protector‚ saying it regarded her report as “defective”.
BDlive reported earlier on Wednesday that a report released by Madonsela detailed former senior general manager Fikile Hlatshwayo-Rouget’s complaint that she had been victimised and that her superiors had abused their powers to dismiss her on trumped-up charges.
This follows her making a protected disclosure on suspicions of corruption‚ conflict of interest‚ maladministration and procurement irregularities in the provincial treasury.
Hlatshwayo-Rouget had been employed at the treasury for two months when she made her disclosure in October 2013.
She was suspended in the same month and dismissed in December.
At the centre of her complaint was the treasury’s involvement in events she believed were a conflict of interest and constituted corruption.
The events included the R25m Durban North Sea Jazz Festival and the Commemoration of Prisoners of War in which some treasury officials had undisclosed interests‚ BDlive reported.
The suspension and subsequent dismissal of the complainant [Hlatshwayo-Rouget]‚ on the basis of trivial charges was irrational‚ unreasonable and unfair and can justifiably be seen as a charade that sought to get the complainant out of the way‚” read the report.
The report looked into whether the treasury had improperly handled Hlatshwayo-Rouget’s protected disclosure‚ whether it improperly suspended and later dismissed her improperly in retaliation to her disclosure and whether she had been prejudiced.
The public protector also found that the treasury had acted unlawfully and in violation of the Protected Disclosures Act (PDA) and the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act in failing to deal with her protected disclosure.
“Due to the treasury’s improper conduct involving the failure to comply with section 3 of the PDA‚ the complainant unduly suffered immense financial‚ emotional and social prejudice‚” the report read.
The public protector said KwaZulu-Natal MEC for finance Belinda Scott had to ensure that Hlatshwayo-Rouget was reinstated to her position with back pay within 30 days of the report being issued.
She also ordered that Hlatshwayo-Rouget be compensated for financial losses she incurred on expenses related to her dismissal and that she be given an apology regarding her unfair dismissal.
In a statement on Wednesday evening‚ the Kwazulu-Natal Treasury said it was “regrettable” that the MEC had first learnt of the publication of the report when the item about the report appeared on television news.
“It is unfortunate that the Public Protector (an office created by the Constitution) saw fit to publicly criticise the MEC and the Treasury (entities also created by the Constitution) without the courtesy of providing the report to them prior to addressing the media‚” the statement read.
It added that the MEC and the provincial treasury regarded the report and the proposed findings as defective for the following reasons:
- It is not correct that the complainant made a protected disclosure. The disclosures had already been made and were the subject of an investigation already underway prior to the complainant’s employment by Provincial Treasury.
- The complainant was not dismissed due to whistle blowing activities. She was dismissed during her probationary period in compliance with the Public Service Act. She appealed against her dismissal‚ and her appeal was dismissed.
- The dismissal and the appeal finding are administrative actions‚ and as such are legally binding and cannot simply be overlooked or ignored or disregarded by the Department. Until they are set aside by a court they remain effective
- To the extent that the fairness of her dismissal is in dispute then that dispute should be decided by the Labour Court‚ who has the jurisdiction to deal with such matters. There are in fact proceedings pending in the Labour Court arising from the complainant’s dismissal‚ and those proceedings would allow the parties to lead evidence and test the other party’s evidence. The MEC and Treasury would abide by those finalized proceedings.
- What the Public Protector has done is to deal with matters that fall within the sole jurisdiction of the Labour Court‚ without giving Treasury the opportunity to be heard and to lead evidence. In doing‚ so she has exceeded her powers. In doing‚ so the Public Protector has opened the door for disgruntled employees to by-pass legal procedures specifically created to allow them to protect their rights‚ and to approach the Public Protector directly‚ and in doing‚ so denying the employer the right to be heard.
- The process followed by the Public Protector is not fair in that material witnesses were not interviewed and they were not offered the opportunity to be heard before findings were made concerning their actions.
“For these reasons the MEC and Provincial Treasury will not implement the remedial action directed by the Public Protector. In accordance with legal precedent the MEC and Treasury will apply to the High Court to review and set aside the decision of the Public Protector‚” the provincial treasury said.
(With BDlive)
TMG Digital
KZN MEC refuses to implement remedial action ordered by public protector in ‘whistle-blower’ dismissal case
KwaZulu-Natal MEC for Finance Belinda Scott has refused to implement remedial action directed by Public Protector Thuli Madonsela who found that the province’s treasury had acted unlawfully when it failed to protect a whistle-blower under its employ.
Instead‚ her department announced on Wednesday evening that it would apply to the High Court to review and set aside the decision by the public protector‚ saying it regarded her report as “defective”.
BDlive reported earlier on Wednesday that a report released by Madonsela detailed former senior general manager Fikile Hlatshwayo-Rouget’s complaint that she had been victimised and that her superiors had abused their powers to dismiss her on trumped-up charges.
This follows her making a protected disclosure on suspicions of corruption‚ conflict of interest‚ maladministration and procurement irregularities in the provincial treasury.
Hlatshwayo-Rouget had been employed at the treasury for two months when she made her disclosure in October 2013.
She was suspended in the same month and dismissed in December.
At the centre of her complaint was the treasury’s involvement in events she believed were a conflict of interest and constituted corruption.
The events included the R25m Durban North Sea Jazz Festival and the Commemoration of Prisoners of War in which some treasury officials had undisclosed interests‚ BDlive reported.
The suspension and subsequent dismissal of the complainant [Hlatshwayo-Rouget]‚ on the basis of trivial charges was irrational‚ unreasonable and unfair and can justifiably be seen as a charade that sought to get the complainant out of the way‚” read the report.
The report looked into whether the treasury had improperly handled Hlatshwayo-Rouget’s protected disclosure‚ whether it improperly suspended and later dismissed her improperly in retaliation to her disclosure and whether she had been prejudiced.
The public protector also found that the treasury had acted unlawfully and in violation of the Protected Disclosures Act (PDA) and the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act in failing to deal with her protected disclosure.
“Due to the treasury’s improper conduct involving the failure to comply with section 3 of the PDA‚ the complainant unduly suffered immense financial‚ emotional and social prejudice‚” the report read.
The public protector said KwaZulu-Natal MEC for finance Belinda Scott had to ensure that Hlatshwayo-Rouget was reinstated to her position with back pay within 30 days of the report being issued.
She also ordered that Hlatshwayo-Rouget be compensated for financial losses she incurred on expenses related to her dismissal and that she be given an apology regarding her unfair dismissal.
In a statement on Wednesday evening‚ the Kwazulu-Natal Treasury said it was “regrettable” that the MEC had first learnt of the publication of the report when the item about the report appeared on television news.
“It is unfortunate that the Public Protector (an office created by the Constitution) saw fit to publicly criticise the MEC and the Treasury (entities also created by the Constitution) without the courtesy of providing the report to them prior to addressing the media‚” the statement read.
It added that the MEC and the provincial treasury regarded the report and the proposed findings as defective for the following reasons:
- It is not correct that the complainant made a protected disclosure. The disclosures had already been made and were the subject of an investigation already underway prior to the complainant’s employment by Provincial Treasury.
- The complainant was not dismissed due to whistle blowing activities. She was dismissed during her probationary period in compliance with the Public Service Act. She appealed against her dismissal‚ and her appeal was dismissed.
- The dismissal and the appeal finding are administrative actions‚ and as such are legally binding and cannot simply be overlooked or ignored or disregarded by the Department. Until they are set aside by a court they remain effective
- To the extent that the fairness of her dismissal is in dispute then that dispute should be decided by the Labour Court‚ who has the jurisdiction to deal with such matters. There are in fact proceedings pending in the Labour Court arising from the complainant’s dismissal‚ and those proceedings would allow the parties to lead evidence and test the other party’s evidence. The MEC and Treasury would abide by those finalized proceedings.
- What the Public Protector has done is to deal with matters that fall within the sole jurisdiction of the Labour Court‚ without giving Treasury the opportunity to be heard and to lead evidence. In doing‚ so she has exceeded her powers. In doing‚ so the Public Protector has opened the door for disgruntled employees to by-pass legal procedures specifically created to allow them to protect their rights‚ and to approach the Public Protector directly‚ and in doing‚ so denying the employer the right to be heard.
- The process followed by the Public Protector is not fair in that material witnesses were not interviewed and they were not offered the opportunity to be heard before findings were made concerning their actions.
“For these reasons the MEC and Provincial Treasury will not implement the remedial action directed by the Public Protector. In accordance with legal precedent the MEC and Treasury will apply to the High Court to review and set aside the decision of the Public Protector‚” the provincial treasury said.
(With BDlive)
TMG Digital
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending
Latest Videos