THE Zimbabwe Republic Police’s (ZRP) conduct of barring officers from
retiring from the police force on reaching pensionable age, on the
basis of an existing bonding agreement, has been declared unlawful by
the court which ruled the pensionable officers have a constitutional
right to retire.
The judgment was delivered by High Court Justice Pricilla Chigumba on
January 18 this year, in a matter involving a serving member of the
ZRP, Tymon Tabana, who in 2016 approached the court seeking an order
compelling then Commissioner General, Augustine Chihuri, Police Service
Commission (PSC) and Home Affairs minister, then Ignatius Chombo, to
allow him to retire from service.
After the court ruled in his favour, the ZRP appealed against the
ruling arguing Tabana was supposed to continue serving until 2021.
The reason for the police refusal, Tabana said was that the police
force was claiming it had funded his (Tabana) university education and
as such wanted him to work until he had fully compensated the force.
“The order granted which is the subject of this subject matter of
this application reads as follows; it be and is hereby declared that the
applicant (Tabana) has a constitutional right as set out in section 55
and 64 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe not to perform forced labour, and
freedom of profession, trade or occupation by being denied the right to
retire upon reaching pensionable service.
“The respondent’s (ZRP) conduct of barring the applicant from
retiring from the police service on reaching pensionable age be and is
hereby declared unlawful. The radio signal dated November 9, 2016
directing the arrest of the applicant be and is hereby declared
unlawful, null and void and of no effect, the bonding agreement which
the applicant and the second respondent signed in 2010 be and is,
hereby, declared unenforceable.”
Besides declaring the forced labour as unconstitutional, Justice
Chigumba also ruled the police was not properly before the court after
taking into account several issues that had not been properly addressed
by the police.
“Herein lies the fatal defect that is bedelving this application, in
my respectful view. The applicant is not at liberty to throw the whole
kitchen sink at the court and ask the court to guess which dishes need
washing and which ones need drying.
“Quite obviously, the ingredients and the equipment used in the washing
process differ significantly from those used in the drying process,” the
judge said.
“One cannot wash dishes if there is no washing powder provided for instance. Kitchen analogies aside, the first thing to note is that, none of the averments necessary to bring the applicant properly before the court in terms of the common law rule 63 and or rule 449 were set out in the founding affidavit…..there is no application for rescission of judgment before us…and for the other reasons set out above, it therefore be and is hereby ordered that the application is dismissed with costs.”
In his court application seeking an interdict against the police, Tabana also cited police chief staff officer, Justice Chifunye Chengeta, who is the human resources administration, as the first respondent. Newsday
0 comments:
Post a Comment