At least 50 CEOs from most of the country’s rural district councils
(RDCs) have petitioned the High Court challenging the government’s directive to
cap their salaries at $1 900.
Through their lawyers, Warara and Associates Legal
Practitioners, the CEOs filed the application on September 7, 2018 seeking the
nullification of the Local Government ministry’s directive issued on October 8,
2014.
They cited George Magosvongwe, the permanent secretary in
the ministry, and current minister July Moyo as the first and second respondent
respectively. The matter is yet to be set down for hearing.
Rural District Council Chief Executives’ Forum (RDCCEF)
chairperson Edward Pise in his founding affidavit said he was urging the court
to nullify the directive.
Pise said the RDCCEF was also seeking an order compelling
all the RDCs to pay their respective CEOs salaries as negotiated between the
local authorities and their employees.
He said the CEOs had tried to engage the permanent
secretary and minister on the matter without success.
“When this directive was issued, it was not based on the
circumstances of the parties, which were not even considered, but a unilateral
interference with an existing contractual relationship between the respective
councils and their employers,” reads part of the affidavit.
“In the premises, I pray for an order setting aside the
directive in terms thereof.”
Pise said no consultations were done before the directive
was issued.
“Following the issuance of this directive, the applicants
tried several times to discuss the issue with the then permanent secretary for
the second respondent, but that did not yield any results,” he said.
“After failing to get the respondent to co-operate,
applicants filed an application in this honourable court, being HC6349/16.
“The respondent offered in meetings held by our
representatives to attend to the issue and correct the illegality, but the
respondent has failed to do anything, which is why we have reinstituted this
application.”
Pise said the RDCCEF maintained its position that the
directive was illegal and prejudicial to its members. Standard
0 comments:
Post a Comment