A Zimbabwean labor court has dismissed a case filed by a former intelligence officer against his employer, the Central Intelligence Organisation (CIO). The court ruled it lacked jurisdiction due to the employee’s status as a member of a disciplined force.
Employee Fired After Alleged Contract Violations
Cloddie Shumba, a former Divisional Intelligence Officer with the CIO, was fired after a disciplinary committee found him guilty of signing unauthorized contracts. The contracts, totaling over US$70,000, were allegedly signed with Leggim Enterprises for construction work without proper approval.
Shumba challenged his dismissal in the Labour Court, arguing the committee’s decision was unfair. However, the CIO successfully argued that the court lacked jurisdiction over the case.
Section 3(3) of Zimbabwe’s Labour Act excludes members of disciplined forces, including the CIO, from its application. Judge Bridget Tapiwa Chivizhe agreed with the CIO’s argument, stating the court “cannot purport to clothe itself with jurisdiction” in such cases.
Shumba Denied Proper Procedures
Shumba argued that he kept his superiors informed about the project’s progress and expected them to conduct necessary checks. He also claimed other employees involved in the project received lighter punishments.
The court did not address the merits of Shumba’s specific claims. However, the judge ruled that the Labour Court was not the appropriate forum for him to challenge his dismissal.
Shumba’s next steps remain unclear. The Labour Court’s decision effectively bars him from pursuing his case through that avenue. He may explore alternative avenues to challenge his dismissal, potentially through a court with jurisdiction over disciplined forces.
This case highlights a potential gap in legal recourse for members of disciplined forces in Zimbabwe who believe they have been unfairly dismissed. While Shumba’s specific claims remain unknown, the case raises questions about the internal grievance procedures within the CIO and the availability of fair adjudication for its employees.
Balancing Security Concerns with Employee Rights
The Zimbabwean government justifies excluding disciplined forces from the Labour Act by citing national security concerns. However, this raises questions about how to balance those concerns with the right of employees to fair treatment.
Some legal experts argue that alternative mechanisms, independent of the employing agency, should be established to handle disputes involving disciplined forces. This could ensure employees have access to a fair and impartial process while upholding national security considerations.
The Labour Court’s decision underscores the need for a clearer legal framework governing the dismissal of employees within Zimbabwe’s disciplined forces. Finding a balance between national security concerns and employee rights remains a challenge for the Zimbabwean government.
Future developments in this case, or similar cases, may provide further insight into how Zimbabwe will address these competing interests.
Source: New Zimbabwe
