No retreat, no surrender for Segokgo

As BDF commander appeals delinking rulings

FRANCISTOWN: The slogan ‘No retreat, no surrender,’ probably crept into the psyche of the Commander of the Botswana Defence Force (BDF), Lieutenant General Placid Segokgo, following a string of losses inflicted upon him by his juniors at the High Court.

Segokgo is clearly reinventing himself after losing several delinking exercise cases that junior soldiers launched against him.

It is not surprising that Segokgo, who is represented by the Attorney General (AG) in his appeal, is now appealing the judgments of the High Court.

The appeals have since been consolidated at Botswana’s apex court, Court of Appeal (CoA), to speed up the trial process and eliminate duplicative trials involving the same parties, issues and evidence.

According to the background of the lawsuits, in 2012, the BDF over which the second respondent (Segokgo) as superintendence, embarked on an exercise which they referred to as delinking, as part of its retention strategy, developed pursuant to the Presidential Directive CAB 15(B) 2011.

The implementation of the exercise involved having salaries of members of the BDF with certain and identified qualifications delinked from their ranks and linked to their qualifications.

In all the cases, the applicants further said in 2019, the commander abandoned the implementation of the delinking and instead adopted and implemented the Permanent Secretary to the President’s Circular No. 1 of 2019, which effectively aligned the second respondent’s pay structure to the Public Service Unitary Pay Structure to cater for members’ entry level and progression.

The applicants (soldiers) sought an order in the following terms: (a) reviewing and setting aside the decision of the second respondent to remove them from the delinking exercise and (b) a declarator that their removal is substantially unfair, wrongful, illegal, unreasonable and void and of no force or effect amongst other reliefs..., according to the ruling. On other hand, the respondents (Attorney General) and BDF Commander, averred that the applicants’ qualifications did not form part of those qualifications envisaged by the Presidential Directive CAB 15(B) 2011 and that their inclusion was an error.

In their Notice of Appeal (NoA), the AG and Segokgo complain that the lower court erred by holding that the decision of Segokgo to remove the respondents from the delinking exercise be reviewed and set aside, that the lower court erred by saying that the respondents were entitled to be remunerated at salary scale C2 top notch from the time the delinking exercise was implemented to date and that the lower courts erred by saying that the respondents were to be paid arrears at salary scale C2 from the date of their removal from the delinking exercise to date hereof with full benefits.

The AG and Segokgo also want the CoA to review the decision of the lower court which said that the respondents be paid 30 days from the date of the order and that the lower court erred by saying that the Appellants should pay the costs of the suits on an attorney and client scale.

In their grounds of appeal, AG and Segokgo aver that the court a quo erred by dismissing the Appellants defence that the Respondents did not have a legitimate expectation that they will continue enjoying benefits under the delinking exercise because the benefits were never meant for them in the first place.

The Appellants also aver that the court a quo erred by disregarding the Applicants’ evidence and further holding that the Respondents were entitled to be appointed as prayed for.

The AG and Segokgo add: “The court a quo erred by ordering costs against the Appellants. Take notice further that the Appellant reserves its right to supplement its grounds of appeal.”

The AG and Segokgo seek the following reliefs: “That it be held that the Respondents claim is without merit, that the appeal be upheld, further and or alternative relief and that the Respondents pay costs of this appeal as well as the High Court. Take notice further that the Appellants reserve its right to supplement its grounds of appeal.”