SRA’s E2mil­lion to­kens to em­ploy­ees:


Whereas oth­ers smiled all the way to the bank when they re­ceived to­kens of ap­pre­ci­a­tion for work­ing dur­ing the strike, a hand­ful re­turned the money say­ing it was un­eth­i­cal.

A di­rec­tor and his com­mis­sioner were hailed for be­ing as­tute in the mat­ter where the Swazi­land Rev­enue Au­thor­ity (SRA) gifted em­ploy­ees who worked dur­ing the strike an es­ti­mated E2mil­lion as to­kens of ap­pre­ci­a­tion. The di­rec­tor and com­mis­sioner are said to have been vo­cal prior to the strike about ways on how man­age­ment could mit­i­gate it, how­ever, their ad­vice is said to have been ig­nored.

When the to­kens were paid out, the two are said to have voiced their con­cerns about their im­port and de­clined them by re­vers­ing the pay­ment from their ac­counts.

Fur­ther, em­ploy­ees at­tached to the hu­man re­sources’ depart­ment are said to have also re­turned the money stat­ing it touched on their in­tegrity as they were paid al­lowances to cover the work done dur­ing the strike.

Of note, the strike which started mid-De­cem­ber, ended a month ago and called for man­agers, who would have or­di­nar­ily been at home en­joy­ing the fes­tive sea­son, to leave their of­fices and do work done by ju­nior staff who were protesting.

Those who were dis­placed and called to work where they would not or­di­nar­ily be based are said to have been paid lunch-out as well as hard­ship al­lowances which raised ques­tions about the rea­son for the to­kens of E10 000 for man­agers and E5 000 for their sub­or­di­nates.

The strike came about af­ter ju­nior staff de­manded an in­crease of 6.5 per cent to their salaries whereas they had re­ceived 6.8 per cent cost of liv­ing ad­just­ment ap­proved by SCOPE to all Cat­e­gory A paras­tatals.

The in­dus­trial protest saw over 400 work­ers down tools at dif­fer­ent SRA sta­tions, caus­ing some to cease all op­er­a­tions. The two se­nior man­agers, who are said to be tasked with pro­vid­ing over­sight in the com­pany, are re­spon­si­ble for de­tect­ing and in­ves­ti­gat­ing is­sues of in­tegrity and un­eth­i­cal be­hav­iour, in­clud­ing al­le­ga­tions of fraud, cor­rup­tion and all acts of dis­hon­esty and mis­con­duct oc­cur­ring and in­volv­ing per­son­nel au­thor­ity.

They are tasked with creat­ing aware­ness or ed­u­ca­tional ini­tia­tives on is­sues of fraud, cor­rup­tion and any un­eth­i­cal be­hav­iour re­lat­ing to SRA ac­tiv­i­ties. Over and above this, their depart­ment calls for them to carry out over­sight tasks. “Th­ese are good gov­er­nance prin­ci­ples fur­ther­ing the cul­ture of trans­parency and ac­count­abil­ity. Towards th­ese, the di­vi­sion en­forces and mon­i­tors the staff gifts dec­la­ra­tion, back­ground checks or vet­ting ex­er­cises and dec­la­ra­tion of as­sets, li­a­bil­i­ties and in­come by staff,” reads the SRA web­site on their man­date.

They are also the first port of call whereby they are sup­posed to be in­formed of em­ploy­ees or tax­pay­ers par­tic­i­pa­tion on fraud, cor­rup­tion, nepo­tism, em­bez­zle­ment, theft, mal­ad­min­is­tra­tion, mis­con­duct, or any act that may con­sti­tute a crim­i­nal or dis­ci­plinary of­fence or may be prej­u­di­cial to the in­ter­ests of SRA, should be re­ported.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Swaziland

© PressReader. All rights reserved.