Ex-SSC CEO faces lawsuit

THE Social Security Commission (SSC) has sued its former chief executive for N$1 million in an attempt to recover money paid irregularly to the top management of the welfare agency.

The lawsuit is to be heard in the High Court at the beginning of November while the SSC and Dessa Laimi Onesmus argue in the meantime whether she should be held liable for the alleged mismanagement and irregularities. The SSC’s lawsuit appears to follow from the recommendations of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry into the affairs of the parastatal.The inquiry recommended that the CEO carry the can for payments made to senior managers if it became difficult to claim refunds from people who received the money.”The Commission is of the view that the former Chief Executive Officer was negligent in inadvertently approving amendments to the Compensation Policy without seeking the necessary SSC Board approval,” said the inquiry’s report about, for example, a 50 per cent increase in the pay for ‘acting’ temporarily [in a post], which SSC management dubbed “added responsibility allowances”.Lawyers for the parastatal are claiming N$683 000 from the former CEO for the “new responsibilities” paid to managers.Similarly, the SSC argued that Onesmus be made to pay N$264 000 that was paid to former finance manager Clement Mugala as “pension gratuity”.SSC lawyers said that Onesmus had no authority to approve the 16 per cent gratuity for the Zambian manager.According to the court papers, lawyers maintain that Onesmus breached the responsibilities she was given as CEO of the parastatal between January 1996 and November 2002 to run the SSC “faithfully and honestly” and to “use reasonable care and skill” in administering the organisation.Onesmus has been accused of “authorising” a 95 per cent increase – N$40 000 – in her car allowance in March 2000, “which she was not entitled to”.Other charges have it that she allegedly used her credit card without authorisation and claimed travel allowances that she was not entitled to.The SSC has demanded N$1,044 million in total from Onesmus.In the same court papers, Onesmus’ lawyers said the former CEO “denies that she acted without authority in authorising, approving, recommending or claiming any allowances or gratuities and using her credit in respect of her employment.”She has challenged the SSC to prove her guilt and charged that she had not been provided with documents to effectively defend the case against her.Onesmus was fired from the SSC in November 2002 after a nine-month suspension.The board this month (June) discussed the report of the Commission of Inquiry into the SSC and to “mandate” the new CEO, Tuli Hiveluah, to implement its recommendations.Hiveluah last week declined to state how far the parastatal had succeeded in recovering money that the inquiry concluded was paid unlawfully, saying the case was with the lawyers.Besides, said Hiveluah, not all the money categorised as irregular payments could be recovered because of “legal entanglements”.Hiveluah also said he wanted to move cautiously because “you may end up using more money than you are trying to recover”.”People [may] have the feeling that nothing is being done but the commissioners are committed to make sure that those recommendations are implemented,” he said of the presidential inquiry’s report.Attempts to reach Onesmus have proved futile.She is herself suing the SSC for wrongful suspension and dismissal.The labour case goes to court on July 7.It is not clear whether lawsuits have been instituted against other senior managers to recover “irregular” payments.The SSC’s lawsuit appears to follow from the recommendations of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry into the affairs of the parastatal.The inquiry recommended that the CEO carry the can for payments made to senior managers if it became difficult to claim refunds from people who received the money.”The Commission is of the view that the former Chief Executive Officer was negligent in inadvertently approving amendments to the Compensation Policy without seeking the necessary SSC Board approval,” said the inquiry’s report about, for example, a 50 per cent increase in the pay for ‘acting’ temporarily [in a post], which SSC management dubbed “added responsibility allowances”.Lawyers for the parastatal are claiming N$683 000 from the former CEO for the “new responsibilities” paid to managers.Similarly, the SSC argued that Onesmus be made to pay N$264 000 that was paid to former finance manager Clement Mugala as “pension gratuity”.SSC lawyers said that Onesmus had no authority to approve the 16 per cent gratuity for the Zambian manager.According to the court papers, lawyers maintain that Onesmus breached the responsibilities she was given as CEO of the parastatal between January 1996 and November 2002 to run the SSC “faithfully and honestly” and to “use reasonable care and skill” in administering the organisation.Onesmus has been accused of “authorising” a 95 per cent increase – N$40 000 – in her car allowance in March 2000, “which she was not entitled to”.Other charges have it that she allegedly used her credit card without authorisation and claimed travel allowances that she was not entitled to.The SSC has demanded N$1,044 million in total from Onesmus.In the same court papers, Onesmus’ lawyers said the former CEO “denies that she acted without authority in authorising, approving, recommending or claiming any allowances or gratuities and using her credit in respect of her employment.”She has challenged the SSC to prove her guilt and charged that she had not been provided with documents to effectively defend the case against her.Onesmus was fired from the SSC in November 2002 after a nine-month suspension.The board this month (June) discussed the report of the Commission of Inquiry into the SSC and to “mandate” the new CEO, Tuli Hiveluah, to implement its recommendations.Hiveluah last week declined to state how far the parastatal had succeeded in recovering money that the inquiry concluded was paid unlawfully, saying the case was with the lawyers.Besides, said Hiveluah, not all the money categorised as irregular payments could be recovered because of “legal entanglements”.Hiveluah also said he wanted to move cautiously because “you may end up using more money than you are trying to recover”.”People [may] have the feeling that nothing is being done but the commissioners are committed to make sure that those recommendations are implemented,” he said of the presidential inquiry’s report.Attempts to reach Onesmus have proved futile.She is herself suing the SSC for wrongful suspension and dismissal.The labour case goes to court on July 7.It is not clear whether lawsuits have been instituted against other senior managers to recover “irregular” payments.