SPTC’s Titus Nzima cleared of E5.9m mess

Senior Manager at SPTC Titus Nzima pleaded not guilty to all four charges during the disciplinary hearing .

MBABANE – Senior Manager at SPTC, Titus Nzima, has been cleared of four charges of misconduct regarding the sale of cable worth over E5.9 million belonging to the telecommunications company.

The Swaziland Posts and Telecommunications Corporation (SPTC) had instituted independent disciplinary proceedings against the Senior Manager - Supply Chain after the cable was sold as scrap to a company known as Euro Swazi Investments (Pty) Ltd.

In the first charge, Nzima was accused of having breached clause 11.03 (general misconduct) of the Disciplinary Code in that he caused and or facilitated the contract with Euro Swazi for the sale of the cable as scrap notwithstanding a resolution by the Executive Committee that the cable should not be sold as scrap thus causing SPTC the loss of E5 948 252.10.

Authority

In the second count, he was alleged to have acted outside the SPTC delegated authority when entering into and signing on behalf of SPTC a contract with Euro Swazi on May 22, 2012.
Thirdly, he was accused of failure to observe SPTC’s tender and procurement procedures and or practices relating to disposal of scrap cables.
In the fourth and last charge, he was alleged to have decided to declare the cable as scrap without seeking the approval of or without the knowledge of the acting Managing Director or acting General Manager-Finance.

Nzima pleaded not guilty to all charges during the disciplinary hearing chaired by Muzi Simelane while he was represented by lawyer Mbuso Simelane.
To substantiate the charges, SPTC brought in two of its employees; Bongekile Masondo (Credit Controller) and Siboniso Kunene (Head of Internal Audit and Risk), as witnesses.

After having heard their evidence, the disciplinary Committee Chairman ruled that the charges against Nzima should not have been instituted in the first place.
“Apart from the first count, which also failed to tie up with the evidence that was led, counts two, three and four should not have been preferred against the accused employee. However, from the leading of evidence, it became clear that the charges were ill-informed.
“The internal auditors completely failed to identify who might have committed workplace misdemeanours,” the chairman concluded.

Revealed

The chairman revealed that the initiator of the hearing ‘persuaded’ him, through the list of actions taken by Nzima, which included the discussion with Masondo on the contract being referred to tender; preparing the contract to be signed and travelling to Matsapha stores with Euro Swazi employees to ‘infer that Mr Nzima is guilty’.

“As can be seen from the aforegoing, this invitation I have refused to accept. The guilt of an employee must be determined upon the available primary evidence. If it is inconclusive, reliance upon an inference may be made. That inference must be the only reasonable inference. If a number of inferences can be drawn, it would be unjust to select one over the others,” wrote the chairman in his judgment.

When the sale of the cable occurred last year, Nzima and two other employees were suspended pending commencement of the disciplinary proceedings.

Disciplinary proceedings described as appalling

MBABANE – The disciplinary proceedings brought against SPTC Senior Manager Titus Nzima have been described as ‘appalling’.

Disciplinary Committee Chairman Muzi Simelane said a disciplinary enquiry was in itself an unpleasant experience for any employee.
“For that reason, employees are entitled to their constitutional rights to be treated with dignity and not to be subjected to degrading treatment. It is appalling to institute disciplinary action against an employee and then fail dismally to produce evidence, or at most, as in this case, the evidence present prior to institution of the charges was pointing to the contrary.”

Added the chairman: “For example, it did not require the skills of a rocket scientist to look or scrutinise the contract of May 22, 2013 to establish who signed it. The same applies to the email of July 17, 2012, it is clear as to who scrapped the cable.”

Simelane said two of the charges against Nzima induced a sense of shock that the employer could actually prosecute them to the end ‘when such evidence in support thereof is conspicuous with its absence’.
He said while it was beyond questioning that an employer had the prerogative to discipline its employees, that right, however, has certain limits.

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: