Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
Mr. Bwalya appealed.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Mr. Bwalya had not demonstrated that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that it had been established by clear and convincing evidence that he had committed misconduct by instructing a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP staff member to forge a backdated Memorandum of Understanding between the Ethiopian Ministry of Agriculture and the private firm Digata and to make a misrepresentation in a second document, intentionally acting to avoid or deviate from Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP¡¯s Financial Regulations, Rules and Procedures through the creation of these documents, and demonstrating favouritism in the award of a one-million dollar contract.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit any errors in its assessment of the credibility of witness testimony. Finally, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed Mr. Bwalya¡¯s allegations that there were irregularities in the investigation and that there was a ¡°conspiracy¡± against him and that the charges against him were ¡°invalid¡±.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT thus dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
Before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, Mr. Bwalya contested the disciplinary measure imposed on him of separation from service with compensation in lieu of notice and without termination indemnity.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that it had been established by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Bwalya committed misconduct by instructing a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP staff member to forge a backdated Memorandum of Understanding between the Ethiopian Ministry of Agriculture and the private firm Digata and to make a misrepresentation in a second document, intentionally acting to avoid or deviate from Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP¡¯s Financial Regulations, Rules and Procedures through the creation of these documents, and demonstrating favouritism in the award of a one-million dollar contract.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that these established facts amounted to misconduct.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was further satisfied that Mr. Bwalya's due process rights had been respected, and that the sanction imposed by the Administration was proportionate to the offence.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT therefore dismissed the application.
Legal Principle(s)
The oral hearing before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT does not aim to provide any further oral evidence or otherwise, but to discuss elements of fact and of law which are already on the record.
In disciplinary cases, the Dispute Tribunal must establish whether the facts on which the sanction is based have been established by clear and convincing evidence when termination is a possible outcome. Clear and convincing proof requires more than a preponderance of the evidence but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt; it means that the truth of the facts asserted is highly probable.