Online Reporter
Fidelis Munyoro
Chief Court Reporter
THE Labour Court has upheld the dismissal of two passport processing officers after finding that their negligent handling of passport applications enabled two Cameroonian nationals to obtain Zimbabwean passports fraudulently.
In a judgment delivered by Justice Clever Tsikwa, the court dismissed with costs an appeal by Marian Roman and Natasha Maureen Munemo against the Ministry of Home Affairs and Cultural Heritage, ruling that the disciplinary authority committed no misdirection in finding them guilty of improper, negligent and inefficient performance of duty.
“Having considered that there has not been proof that the disciplinary authority grossly misdirected itself in convicting the appellants and that imposition of penalty is sole discretion of the employer and that dismissal is the appropriate penalty if the misconduct goes to the root of the employment relationship, the Court finds no legal basis to interfere with the penalty imposed,” ruled Justice Tsikwa.
Roman, a processing officer responsible for enrolling passport applicants, was dismissed after she processed the application of Christiana Mhereyenyoka, who was later established to be a Cameroonian national.
The disciplinary authority found that she failed to properly verify discrepancies between the applicant’s residential addresses on the passport application form and the computer system, resulting in the issuance of a Zimbabwean passport to an undeserving foreign national.
Munemo, who worked at the Central Registry in the Passport Section, was dismissed after she issued a blank passport application form through a cleaner acting as an intermediary instead of dealing directly with the applicant.
The form was later used by another Cameroonian national, Maini Yvette, who also obtained a Zimbabwean passport.
The two officers challenged both their convictions and the penalty of dismissal, arguing that they had performed their duties in line with existing practice and that there were no written standard operating procedures requiring them to act differently.
They also argued that the disciplinary authority failed to properly consider mitigating factors before imposing dismissal.
Justice Tsikwa rejected those arguments, holding that passport processing officers occupy security-sensitive positions requiring vigilance beyond written instructions.
“A processing officer applying her mind to the duty at hand and its sensitivity would have halted the process and alerted authorities of her suspicion,” the judge said while assessing Roman’s conduct.
The court found that Roman ought to have investigated further after discovering two different addresses for the applicant and should have become suspicious when the applicant struggled to communicate in Shona.
Rejecting the argument that there was no written obligation to change the address or carry out further enquiries, Justice Tsikwa held that such responsibilities arose from the implied duties of her employment.
“That was implied in her duty as an Enroller or Verifier. She had a duty to verify the addresses,” the judge said.
On Munemo’s appeal, the court ruled that although issuing passport forms through cleaners had become common practice, the practice was unlawful and could not excuse negligent conduct.
“I am persuaded by submissions by counsel for the respondents that the fact that it was common practice does not make it lawful,” Justice Tsikwa said.
The court found that Munemo knew applicants were ordinarily required to appear in person to collect passport application forms except in limited circumstances, but failed to establish whether any exemption applied before releasing the form through a cleaner.
Justice Tsikwa said the conduct of both officers undermined the integrity of Zimbabwe’s passport issuance system and created a serious national security risk by allowing undeserving foreign nationals to acquire Zimbabwean travel documents.
The court further ruled that although mitigation must be considered under the Labour Act, it does not override an employer’s discretion to dismiss employees whose misconduct goes to the root of the employment relationship.
“The offences the two appellants were convicted of cannot be termed trivial, so inadvertent, so aberrant or otherwise so excusable to deserve a penalty other than dismissal,” Justice Tsikwa said.
The appeal was dismissed with costs.
