In a response to a lawsuit filed by over 400 employees who are accusing the DIS of failing to fast track their progression since 2007, the intelligence agency has defended its decision.
It based its defence not to fast track progression of the said employees on grounds that there was no contract breach and that progression is not automatic nor an entitlement. “We deny that there was a contract breach as promotion in the public sector is based on certain factors. Promotion is not automatic nor an entitlement,” the DIS insisted.
According to the spy unit’s papers before court dated February 28, 2024, it states that although there was a Savingram from the Directorate of Public Service Management (DPSM) of May 30, 2007 that the disgruntled employees are basing their lawsuit on, it clearly gave clarity with regards to filling in of vacant posts where there were any.
The DIS explained that the Savingram clearly stated that the filling of posts where there were any should be within the applicable or relevant establishment registry model not parallel to it or contrary to it. “It doesn’t take away the requirement for officers to have or to be in possession of requisite qualification amongst other requirements.
We have applied the said Savingram and its implementation as well as that of the directives quoted by the employees depends on the existing model and was applied in a fair and equitable manner and officers who were eligible or meet all the requirements progressed as per the applicable model within establishment register,” the DIS added.
Further, the DIS emphasised that the purpose of the Savingram was to fill the vacant posts through progression of officers and to progress, officers had to meet the requirements for promotion or progression in the public service meaning that the Savingram did not take away the need to qualify for progression. In DIS’ defence, it stated that it was and is compliant with the Savingram of May 30, 2007 on multiple titling and grading as well as all directives and that implementation was done for officers in the unit who had the requisite qualifications to progress in a fair, just, reasonable and equitable manner.
“The discretion to properly apply Savingram of May 30, 2007 and applicable directives is vested upon us and is incumbent upon us and we have properly done so in a just and fair manner to the benefit of all officers who qualified and met the progression requirement. Those who were eligible progressed and those who were not did not progress,” noted the agency. The DIS said the Savingram and directives were clear that it did not provide promotion progression of non qualifying officers and that promotion in the public office is dependent upon various factors.
Most importantly, it stated, one has to be qualified to be promoted to the post and that there has to be a post to be promoted into. The DIS pointed out that where there is no vacant existing post, one cannot be promoted and if one does not meet all the requirements for progression in the public service, then there is nothing that can be done and moreover that it will be unjust to progress a non qualifying officer. On the accusation that the DIS does not allow employees from going for further studies, it denied the allegations saying the employer does not bar anyone and that it in fact promotes such as skill upgrading will mean an upgrade in the quality of the public service delivery. The Peter Magosi-led organisation also said it has not created or induced any legitimate expectation on the employees that they will be promoted or progressed.
It also stated that it has applied the Savingram in a fair and objective manner, so the employees lawsuit should be dismissed with costs. The background of the lawsuit is that about 406 employees last year issued a writ of summons against the DPSM, the DIS and the Attorney General on grounds that the decision taken by government not to pay salary back pays effective from April 2008 was unlawful. The writ of summons came from a long standing issue between the officers and their employer on the fast tracking of employees’ progression, as the officers have in the past bemoaned that the DIS continues to ignore a court order that was issued against all ministries for salary scales and a subsequent directive by the DPSM enforcing the judgment. The employees' concerns are in relation to the DPSM directive reportedly meant to fast track progression of public servants in the C-band category but at the DIS, it has been alleged by some employees that things have not been effected as per the directive. According to the officers, in 2007 the government introduced multiple titling and grading of C-band positions through a Savingram DPSM 13/34/9 (43) dated May 30, 2007. The directive was reportedly meant for all ministries but with the government realising many were not complying as a follow up to the 2007 Savingram, it issued Directive No. 6 of 2008, where the objectives of multiple grading and titling was vividly set out.
The Directive allowed for direct appointment of graduates with appropriate academic qualifications at entry level but without experience and to facilitate faster progression of serving officers who qualify for promotion without the need for ministries to request for additional posts or resources. With both the 2007 Savingram and the 2008 Directive on multiple grading and titling of C-band positions being applicable to all ministries, the DIS officers allege that they were also included but have not yet benefited from the Savingram and the Directive. Particulars of the claim are that the officers are aggrieved by the decision taken by the government not to pay salary back pays despite the court order and the directive. “The decision is contrary to Directive No. 6 of 2008 as read with the Savingram titled Implementation of the Court of Appeal Judgement Pertaining to Directives and savingrams on Multiple Titling and Grading of C-Band Positions dated May 13, 2022,” reads the summons. The officers, who are represented by Collins Chilisa Consultants, argue that they had a legitimate expectation to receive back pays effective from April 2008 and that the decision was unlawful in so far as the decision to pay is not back dated from 2001 when the Directive No. 10 of 2001 came into force. They submitted that the government has communicated its intention to not pay them salary back pays in terms of 2008 Directive effective from 2010 when they joined the DIS. In the summons, the officers argued that a cause of action was clear in the sense that in terms of Directive No. 10 of 2001, public officers have the right to be assessed and where a vacancy exists, they are to be recommended for promotion after a minimum period of two years instead of three years as was the case prior to that directive.
