Agric ministry denies ‘unfair, unlawful’ promotions

The Ministry of Agricultural Development and Food Security has denied using unfair and unlawful means for promotions within its departments.

The ministry and its permanent secretary (PS) have been under fire with some employees accused of promoting others without proper regard to their qualifications. They have been having issues with some employees after being accused of bypassing procedures used for promotions and promoting unqualified individuals.

The six employees aggrieved by the fact that they were not allowed to compete for the vacancies despite qualifying launched a court case as they likened the ministry’s decision to that of nepotism and corruption. In defence, the ministry says it deviated from the norm used for promotions as there was a big project within the ministry that needed expertise.

“The only reason for not considering the respondents at the time of deliberating on promotions was that it was necessary to deviate from the norm of considering other public officers because of the magnitude of the farm project,” the ministry stated. The ministry is trying to defend its decision before the court after the aggrieved employees dragged it to court and is being told that their decision to promote individuals without considering qualifications was unlawful. The High Court last year had cancelled the ministry’s decision after finding out that the PS acted unlawfully in failing to consider qualified employees for the available positions. The court had also explained that where a position exists within the government, officers within the ministry who qualify to take the post are entitled to be considered for it.

Now before the Court of Appeal, the ministry is trying to appeal the High Court ruling with the contention that the lower court failed to see that the employees who were not considered for promotions were correctly excluded from promotions as they did not have the relevant expertise and experience the appointed employees possessed.

“The employees do not have requisite experience in livestock improvement and breeding, which formed part of the big project that needed people with the requisite expertise,” read papers by the ministry.

The PS explained that the ministry also considered the efficiency of the public service when appointing the said two qualified officers in question as they possessed the relevant expertise and experience as compared to the rest of the six aggrieved employees.

On the other end, the aggrieved employees want the ministry’s appeal thrown out saying the decision was unfair and unlawful as they are all qualified animal scientists by virtue of having acquired the necessary academic qualifications and therefore deserved to have been considered for promotions. The employees in their papers argue that the PS undoubtedly acted unlawfully in overlooking the employees and deviating from the norm of using competency based interviews on the basis that some had failed to perform on several occasions.

“The conclusion that one of the employees had failed to perform on several occasions was appalling in view of the fact that his performance in respect of the last two years had been superior to that of others even the one employee who was promoted,” the employees said.

The employees also explained that there was no job description against which it could be objectively said that they were not entitled to be considered because they allegedly did not possess the expertise or experience that were required.

They emphasised that they do not assert that they should have been the ones promoted and that they do not seek to have the court substitute its discretion for that of the decision maker, but simply seek to have the decision maker act lawfully. Collins Chilisa Consultants represents the six employees while the ministry and PS are represented by the Attorney General.

The six employees aggrieved by the fact that they were not allowed to compete for the vacancies despite qualifying launched a court case as they likened the ministry’s decision to that of nepotism and corruption.