Government says the judge drivers’ allowance dispute has already been settled, but 32 drivers insist they are still owed nearly P20 million.
GAZETTE REPORTER
The government has launched a fresh legal challenge seeking to halt a renewed attempt by 32 judge drivers to recover nearly P20 million in alleged unpaid standby allowance arrears, arguing that the matter has already been resolved by the courts.
The State maintains that it has fully complied with previous court directives and that no further payments are due, setting the stage for another legal battle over the interpretation and implementation of earlier orders.
STATE ARGUES CASE HAS REACHED FINALITY
Court papers filed by the Attorney General before the High Court in Francistown show that the government wants the drivers’ latest application dismissed before it proceeds to a full hearing.
The Attorney General, acting on behalf of the Ministry of Justice and Correctional Services, has raised a preliminary objection that the High Court is now functus officio — meaning it has exhausted its authority over the dispute after delivering its previous judgment.
The State argues that the drivers had already obtained a favourable ruling declaring that they were entitled to standby allowances and that the court had directed government to calculate and process the payments.
According to the government, the court order issued on 26 November 2024 required it to determine each driver’s entitlement, provide a breakdown of the calculations and facilitate payment through the Accountant General.
GOVERNMENT INSISTS IT COMPLIED
In its court papers, the Attorney General argues that the directives were fully implemented.
The State says that on 25 November 2024, each applicant was informed of the amount due, the method used to calculate the payments and the expected payment process.
Government lawyers maintain that the required calculations were completed and communicated to the drivers, while instructions were issued to the Accountant General to process the payments.
“It is the opinion of the Respondent that a full compliance with the order of the court was carried out and there was nothing left out,” the Attorney General states.
GOVERNMENT CLAIMS DRIVERS ACCEPTED PAYMENTS
In an alternative argument, the State says the drivers effectively accepted the payments made to them without raising immediate objections.
Government lawyers contend that by accepting the payments, the applicants waived their right to challenge the amounts received or seek additional compensation.
The Attorney General argues that allowing the latest application to proceed would amount to reopening a dispute that has already been concluded through the judicial process.
DRIVERS REJECT GOVERNMENT’S POSITION
However, the judge drivers have rejected the government’s argument, insisting that they have not been fully paid and that outstanding amounts remain due.
Leading applicant Mbiganyi Sechele disputes the State’s claim of compliance, arguing that the government’s interpretation of the court order is flawed.
“I deny that full payment has been made,” Sechele states in his response.
Sechele claims that government initially gave no indication that it had difficulties understanding or implementing the court order.